Amend It.
I am strongly opposed to amending a state or U.S. Constitution to address something like marriage. I don't think the Constitution should have language which expressly sets forth marriage shall be between one man and one woman only.
The problem is, judges don't share that belief. As we have seen, first in Massachusetts, then in California and now in Connecticut, judges believe they have the power and the duty to amend the state constitution to override the express will of the people and the state legislatures and radically alter the state constitution and create out of whole cloth a new definition of marriage.
Accordingly, it is time to rebuke the judges and let the people amend their constitutions - it is probably time to pass a federal marriage amendment as well.
It should be noted the extreme violence these radical judges are doing to the state of the law by substituting their own personal whims for the laws carefully thought out and developed over time. It could be that, in time, society will change and will decide to jettison marriage and substitute something new. So be it - it is not for the judges to act as tyrants to ram these changes through.
Therefore - amend the constitution and send a clear message to the judges that they, too, are under the law.
More
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Question 1: Senator Obama, in an interview with CNN, you cited Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter as examples of the kinds of justices you would appoint to the high court. In two cases today, your ideal justices split, with Breyer being in the majority and Souter/Ginsburg being in the dissent.
In the first case, two of your ideal justices would have set free a man who to offered to exchange photographs of adult men sexually molesting his 4-year-old daughter for other pictures of child pornography. [Opinion.] In the second case, your ideal justices would have given a career criminal who was illegally using a firearm a much lighter sentence than what the majority determined the law required. Given that both Justices Roberts and Alito, whom you voted against, were in the majority with Justice Breyer, can you tell American whether you would persist in nominating judges like Souter and Ginsburg?
Oh, and in a third case today, Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from a Supreme Court opinion which overturned the 9th Circuit which had set aside the conviction of a terrorist who conspired to detonate explosives at Los Angeles International Airport during the millennium holiday travel period.
During the Alito confirmation hearings you opposed him because you believed he was "contrary to core American values." In other words, he was wrong to punish a child abuser, a convict possessing illegal weapons and a terrorist?
Senator Obama, what values are you talking about?
In the first case, two of your ideal justices would have set free a man who to offered to exchange photographs of adult men sexually molesting his 4-year-old daughter for other pictures of child pornography. [Opinion.] In the second case, your ideal justices would have given a career criminal who was illegally using a firearm a much lighter sentence than what the majority determined the law required. Given that both Justices Roberts and Alito, whom you voted against, were in the majority with Justice Breyer, can you tell American whether you would persist in nominating judges like Souter and Ginsburg?
Oh, and in a third case today, Justice Stephen Breyer dissented from a Supreme Court opinion which overturned the 9th Circuit which had set aside the conviction of a terrorist who conspired to detonate explosives at Los Angeles International Airport during the millennium holiday travel period.
During the Alito confirmation hearings you opposed him because you believed he was "contrary to core American values." In other words, he was wrong to punish a child abuser, a convict possessing illegal weapons and a terrorist?
Senator Obama, what values are you talking about?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Voter ID. The Supreme Court today rejected a facial challenge* to an Indiana law requiring voters to show a photo ID before voting.
The Court split 3-3-3, with 2 groups of 3 rejecting the facial challenge: Justice Stevens announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy joined. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Breyer also filed a dissenting opinion.
Why did Stevens not join up with the liberal trio -- in many instances he is on their side or may even be to the "left" of some of these justices.
John Paul Stevens came to the attention of the public at large as his days as an attorney -- a Republican attorney -- fighting political corruption in Chicago. While he has strong sympathies for the liberal causes, he also knows how these causes can be undermined by political corruption. He is willing to give good government types the tools they need to fight corruption. At the same time, he is willing to give those who see that a corrupt power can misuse this type of statute the tools they need to challenge the application of the law.
As an aside, this shows very good judgment by the Chief to assign the writing of the opinion to Stevens.
In all, a good decision.
* A facial challenge means that the statute is unconstitutional on its face. This is opposed to what will certainly come next: an "as applied" challenge - meaning the statute, as applied, is unconstitutional.
The Court split 3-3-3, with 2 groups of 3 rejecting the facial challenge: Justice Stevens announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy joined. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Breyer also filed a dissenting opinion.
Why did Stevens not join up with the liberal trio -- in many instances he is on their side or may even be to the "left" of some of these justices.
John Paul Stevens came to the attention of the public at large as his days as an attorney -- a Republican attorney -- fighting political corruption in Chicago. While he has strong sympathies for the liberal causes, he also knows how these causes can be undermined by political corruption. He is willing to give good government types the tools they need to fight corruption. At the same time, he is willing to give those who see that a corrupt power can misuse this type of statute the tools they need to challenge the application of the law.
As an aside, this shows very good judgment by the Chief to assign the writing of the opinion to Stevens.
In all, a good decision.
* A facial challenge means that the statute is unconstitutional on its face. This is opposed to what will certainly come next: an "as applied" challenge - meaning the statute, as applied, is unconstitutional.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)