Posted on 05/18/2008 12:53:56 PM PDT by Jim W N
"More disappointed than surprised" -- that describes the feelings of a California pro-family coalition working to place a marriage amendment question of the fall general election ballot.
On Thursday the California Supreme Court ruled against Proposition 22 and other prohibitions against same-sex "marriage" in a 4-3 decision. In doing so, says Ron Prentice of ProtectMarriage.com, the court created new law instead of interpreting existing law.
Prentice contends the decision completely disregards the vote of the people, which defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. That vote took place in March 2000; however, it did not protect the traditional definition of marriage in the state constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at onenewsnow.com ...
The separation of governmental powers is vital to our freedoms and that includes keeping the judiciary non-political. The job of the judiciary branch is simply to apply the law, not make up their own laws and certainly not worry about a popular vote if the result is found to be unconstitutional.
It’s not “We the People” anymore, Toto.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
This is Judicial Tyranny and they answer to no one. The Judicial System in America is corrupt and full of egotistical idiots. The system polices itself and lawyers or a God unto themselves. They will take us down this road as far as we are willing to allow it. They set have total control of government now and nothing short of a Revolution can save America.
we need to run those justices out of town on a rail
that is how we the people need to react to their decision.
families are what is in the best interest of children. an intact mother father family. I know there are circumstances that make it not happen, but,
when you have two women / or two men / in a living arrangement, they can never make children between the two of them.
that is nature. you have to bring in an outside source to make a child
I’ve wondered why we couldn’t (try) to get a constitutional amendment making it an impeachable offense for a Supreme Court Justice to willfully and blatantly ignore the constitution in his decision(s). This would create accountability without (legally) politicizing the judiciary which would be a grave error.
Ain't gonna happen.
How the hell did this happen?
Tyrants passing as judges crap in the face of voters once again. Spending millions to go to the polls and millions of gallons of gas all flushed down the drain to placate the black-robed dictators.
Moral and spiritual corruption. "We the people" have not done what Reagan after he left the White House admonished conservatives to do - commandeer America's institutions once again. I'm also afraid this moral and spiritual malaise reaches down into "we the people" as well. John Adams and our founders fretted about this day coming to pass in our country.
Now if only the judges would remove Arnold and appoint one of their number to be Governor and do away with all the middle men and women and just run the state. Heck, they can’t do much worse and think of the money they will save on elections?
Perhaps a reeducation program would be helpful...
Yes, I think it would be tough to enforce. But I think it would be better than what we have now which is nothing. There would be something on the books that might make a judge think twice before blatantly ignoring the law.
I think of it like the town putting up with the corrupt sheriff or judge until some hero come along and shows the townspeople they can run them out of town if they have the will to stand up to them. I think this kind of impeachment law would be a step toward accountability without politicizing the judiciary because it would be tied to the law and the Constitution, not popularity and politics.
Other than electing better executives who will appoint better judges, I don't know any better legal way of dealing with this, other than prayer. I hope America still stands a prayer.
I've asked for the proof that the Cali Constitution defines marriage, yet to see it. You got link, or even the cut/paste version. Is there wording that bans gay marriage? If yes, the Court is wrong. If no, the mob doesn't rule in this Country, the Court was right, all the wailing and thrashing about aside. Blackbird.
Until we deal with the weaknesses in the Fraternity of Lawyers things will never change. South Carolina has a Chief Justice that was involved in two hit and run accidents and she was not disciplined to my knowledge and the Legislature unanimously reappointed her. What does this tell you? The Judicial System is run from beginning to end by lawyers regardless of who makes up the Congress or General Assembly and that is like asking you to try your own child without a bias.
What is required is just the opposite. The constitution doesn't have to specifically address every version of somebody's new idea of what something is. Judges and Justices are required to apply the text of the law as originally intended when the law was legislated and written. It wouldn't be hard to tell from the writings of the authors of the law and the more's and laws of the times when the marriage law in California was written many decades ago, that a heterosexual union was what was intended. Most likely at the same time, homosexuality was illegal.
From that understanding, the judges are required to render a ruling base on the law as is and as originally intended not what they or the new trendy popular culture want it to be. Otherwise you have what we have now, judicial activism.
For homosexual marriage to be legitimate, the legislature must pass a law specifying a re-definition of marriage. But in fact the opposite is the case - the law specifies that marriage is defined only as a heterosexual union. So there is no legal grounds for the Cal. Supreme Court to do what it did.
That is right. As I wrote on an earlier post, we have not done what Reagan after he left the White House admonished conservatives to do - commandeer America's institutions once again. I'm also afraid this moral and spiritual malaise reaches down into the fabric of "we the people" as well. John Adams and our founders fretted about this day coming to pass in our country.
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.