Posted on 02/08/2012 8:08:28 AM PST by SmithL
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has a hard-won reputation for issuing sweeping, precedent-setting and liberal rulings that are often overturned by the more conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
With liberal icon Stephen Reinhardt as its lead author, one might expect a three-judge appellate panel not only to strike down Proposition 8, California's 2008 anti-gay marriage measure, but to declare a fundamental constitutional right for gays and lesbians to marry.
Had it done so, it likely would have invited another Supreme Court reversal.
Instead, Reinhardt – showing uncharacteristic constraint – sidestepped the larger constitutional rights issue cited in the trial court ruling, saying, "We … need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry."
Rather, the 2-1 decision struck down Proposition 8 on narrow, legalistic grounds with words that seemed to be aimed at an audience of one – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Tuesday's ruling quoted extensively from a 1996 Kennedy-authored decree in Romer v. Evans striking down an anti-gay rights ballot measure in Colorado as being unconstitutionally discriminatory. That decision was 6-3, but the Supreme Court has since evolved into a 4-4 tie between liberals and conservatives with Kennedy often casting the decisive vote in contentious cases.
Reinhardt's opinion said that when the California Supreme Court overturned an earlier anti-gay marriage measure and allowed same-sex couples to marry, it established a right that Proposition 8 then sought to cancel, thus violating the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
More on Judge Reinhardt:
On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit dismissed a suit by parents
against the school district. Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Stephen Reinhardt (Robespierre meets Kinsey) declared that parents have neither due process nor privacy rights when it comes to sexual brainwashing.
The case involved a questionnaire distributed to 7- to-10
year-olds in the Palmdale, California school system. The survey asked students to rate how often they thought about “touching my private parts too much,” “thinking about other people’s private parts,” “having sex feelings in my body” and so on.
Reinhardt also was the author of the 2002 decision in which
the 9th Circuit held that it was unconstitutional for students to say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words “one nation under God.”
In part, this was based on so-called church/state grounds, but also because it supposedly violated the rights of atheist parents to transmit their values to their children.
Thus, examining the rulings side by side, Reinhardt believes exposing children to God (in the form of four words in the Pledge) violates parental rights, but conducting sexual interrogations — over parental objections — does not. Simple explanation: God threatens the left’s agenda, sexual indulgence facilitates it.
In the Palmdale decision, Reinhardt decreed: “There is no
fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of
information regarding sexual matters to their children.”
Further, “We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy rights to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children are exposed as enrolled students.”
Roll it around on the tongue to fully savor the absurdity of
Reinhardt’s position. His honor is saying that nowhere in our long history or experience as a free people, or in the concept of “ordered liberty” – from the Bible to the Magna Carta to the Constitution — can the court find a right of parents to guide and direct their children’s upbringing.
http://www.donfeder.com/articles/0511parentsrights.pdf
BTT - wack job reference.
As always, the Constitution’s meaning comes down to one man: Justice Anthony “I am the Constitution” Kennedy.
In other words, in order to avoid getting overturned (again) by The Supreme’s, they found a way to get around them.
This is such ridiculous logic. The CA people passed a law saying only opposite sex couples can marry. The CA Supreme Court invalidated it. Homosexuals started to marry. The CA people passed a constitutional amendment saying only opposite sex couples can marry. A 3 judge 9th Circuit panel invalidated it.
The will of the people was thwarted by judges. The judges are the ones that granted gays the "right" to marry. The CA people never granted that right. They were only blocked for a while by judges from legally defining marriage in CA as the union of a man and a woman. For the 9th Circuit panel to say that the CA Supreme Court established that right is tyranny, as that "right" was in direct opposition to the will of the people.
“My mind’s eye sees President Newt signing a bill that disestablishes the Ninth Circus...”
I agree with you. I wonder if anyone here knows Santorum’s stance on the judiciary.
I thought that judges were supposed to rule on the law alone. Trying to set precedent by aiming a ruling at a particular judge is blatantly political.
Conservative/Constructionist judges rule based on the law.
Liberal judges rule based on “how do _I_ want society to be shaped by my ruling?”
I totally agree. Hopefully the Supreme Court will see through the bizarre logic of the CA Supreme Court and the 9th Circuit panel and rule accordingly.
I think you’re right on; but there’s a ‘secret weapon’ that nobody seems to be using against judges: the law.
To be precise, the actions you’ve cited are felonies, I’ve already outlined it on another post (and I’m feeling a bit lazy) so here’s the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2843051/posts?page=28#28
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.