[rmlew]

I hate it when I disagree with Sobran. It always makes me feel dirty. Damned anti-Semite.

[King Black Robe]

read tomorrow

[mrustow]

I tend to either vehemently agree or disagree with Sobran. In this case, I can't find a dot or a cross I'd change. Just the other day, I wrote a colleague that the impeachment of judges (which I used to consider overly drastic) is the only way to reign in a runaway judiciary.

Whenever a socialist judge imposes his politics on the state or federal constitution, and usurps the law, his fellow socialists say that, "once again, the system of checks and balances has worked." But letting judges make law is the opposite of checks and balances; it means letting the judiciary usurp the prerogative of the legislative branch. And for such usurpation of power, there is only one form of relief -- impeachment.

Unfortunately, I don't see George W. Bush reaching for relief.

[mrustow]

P.S. You're not supposed to change article titles.

[supercat]

The problem was highlighted this past November, when the supreme court of Massachusetts handed down the sensational ruling that the state’s constitution required that same-sex “marriage” be recognized in law.

What exactly did the court say? If the problem with the existing marriage law was that it discriminated against homosexuals, the logical solution would be to pass a law expliclty providing that men and woman shall not be prohibited from marriage on the basis of sexual orientation, i.e. a man of any sexual orientation shall be allowed to marry a woman of any sexual orientation. Where's the discrimination in that?