[LowCountryJoe]

I find myself disagreeing with Buchanan on several occasions because of his protectionist and isolationist stances. But here, Mr. Buchanan illustrates the dire state of affairs that exists because of judicial activism.

Regardless of where one stands on the 'gay' issue, what this state supreme court chief justice has ruled has to set off the 'bulls--t' alarm.

[narses]

A Pat Buchanan Ping.

[jimkress]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut, occasionally. Such is the case for Mr. Buchanan with this article.

[MJY1288]

PJB is a bitter old man that is incapable of doing anything other than complain. If he has all the answers, why is it that he has never been elected to any public office?

I know why, It's because he much rather complain about everyone, and everything, while contributing absolutely nothing. I have had many firends like old Pat, unfortunately for them, they don't have the luxury of having their negativity posted in the media for the world to see. They are all by their lonesome stairing at a half empty glass of water wondering why nobody ever comes by to visit

[hunter112]

Kind of silly for Pat to ask:

...If Bay State legislators will refuse to pass the law demanded by the court, and Romney will refuse to sign such a law and orders the bureaucracy to ignore the court, what could the court do?

Courts have fashioned their own remedies in the past, getting involved in minute detail, if they felt they had to. This Court will just simply declare that being gender opposites is no longer a qualification for marriage, and will order lower courts to accept applications on that basis. All subordinate courts are bound by the state's Supreme Court, and they won't even bother ruling against a gay couple who brought a case based on a refusal of whoever registers marriages to do so with theirs.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court did not set up the 180 days as a period of time to allow people to thwart it. It could have ordered gay marriages to be registered immediately. It was giving the governor and the legislature a chance to avoid a Constitutional battle on the US level, and adopt a civil unions plan.

If the governor tries to stick a finger in the Court's eye, he might find their fist back in his face. The time for setting off the BS alarm was years before, when these cases were making it through the lower courts. It wasn't possible to get an anti-gay-marriage amendment through the MA legislature then, it won't be possible now.

[Brian Allen]

<< I find myself disagreeing with Buchanan on several occasions because of his protectionist and isolationist stances. But here, Mr. Buchanan illustrates the dire state of affairs that exists because of judicial activism.

Regardless of where one stands on the 'gay' issue, what this state supreme court chief justice has ruled has to set off the 'bulls--t' alarm. >>

I was gunna have at this post but then I read:

<< Even a blind squirrel finds a nut, occasionally. Such is the case for Mr. Buchanan with this article. >>

The fact that Mr Buchanan said it doesn't make it other than absolutely right to the letter.

It just guarantees that nobody will pay what he said any attention and even that some will go so far as to place their judgement of Mr Buchanan -- and their hatred -- ahead of the Truth contained in this found nut.

Thank you, jimkress.

Bump/Ping

[neverdem]

PJB is on the money. There needs to be a mechanism to remove judges and justices who legislate from the bench.

Lifetime appointments is an anachronism in a time of absurd left wing activism that defies common sense and the U.S. Constitution when we are in a war against terrorism by islamofascists who want take the world back 1300 years. The former and the latter have nothing in common except their hatred of traditional Americn values, which they have made a common cause in the same way as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin.

The judicial branch of government at both the state and federal level needs reform badly. The criteria for impeachment or re-appointment to limited terms must be addressed, by constitutional amendment if necessary.

[CMClay]

I'm a huge Pat Buchanan fan.
having said that, he needs to brush up on his history:

Conventional wisdom has it that the 1773 Tea Act - a tax law passed in London that led to the Boston Tea Party - was simply an increase in the taxes on tea paid by American colonists. In reality, however, the Tea Act gave the world’s largest transnational corporation - The East India Company - full and unlimited access to the American tea trade, and exempted the Company from having to pay taxes to Britain on tea exported to the American colonies. It even gave the Company a tax refund on millions of pounds of tea they were unable to sell and holding in inventory.
Tea Party Protest

[Quix]

I agree.