[JulieRNR21]

More than 225 years ago, our forefathers suffered under the tyranny of an unelected, unaccountable king and his court who simply made decisions that seemed best for their cause. The American colonists had no say, hence the popular phrase arose "taxation without representation." Now we have what might be called "re-culturalization without representation."

The writer makes the case that Americans are faced with 'judicial turanny'.

[JulieRNR21]

This writer is the lone voice of reason on the NYTimes owned newspaper........PING

[cake_crumb]

"The writer makes the case that Americans are faced with 'judicial turanny'."

He's absolutely right. I already call 'em "mini-dictators"

[longtermmemmory]

For reference, this is what the homosexuals and the courts fear:


H.J. Res. 56 and S.J. Res. 26
Amendment Text:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law,
shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon unmarried couples or groups.

[drypowder]

And so I say, in a plea for democratic freedom: Put it to the people. We'll live by the decision of the voters.

I hate to bring disappointing news but we Californians voted and put a law in place that only a Male and Female are allowed to legally marry. That law means squat to gays, lesbians, our AG, our Gov, the mayor and DA of SF or any other official with state wide policing authority. Majority does not rule unless a recall or guns are shown. Thus far, recall still gets their attention.

[King Black Robe]

Good article.

[Southack]

Judicial tyranny is the smoldering issue of our times that the news media would prefer we not see.

[alloysteel]

One of the difficulties we have in understanding the Islamic world is the imposition of "Shar'ia" law, using the authority of the Qu'ran. Apparently there is not the principle of judicial review, in which a law which has been adopted and is in general enforcement, once broken, may be scrutinized using the authority vested in a document on which the law code is based, and determined to be either in conformity with that authority, or in conflict. If found in conformity, the verdict is upheld. If in conflict on a substantive point, clearly not trivial, the verdict is overturned, and the law as written is nullified.

Under "Shar'ia" law, the written law may be established by judicial fiat alone, whether it has been in contention or not. In effect, this is using the Qu'ran to dictate a law code, with no legislative input, and no expression of the will of the electorate.

This is what the activist judges have done. In the absense of a definitive legal opinion, in either an adopted law or history of case law, these interpreters of the law have unilaterally determined what, in their personal belief, the law should say, and they have rendered this decision without an inquiry from any interested party. In short, they have dictated law, which is vastly beyond their scope. Only legislatures may enact laws, and only executives may put them in force. Those laws are applicable until successfully challenged on the basis of conflict with the organizational document, or repealed by legislative act.

There is a vast amount of case law against any kind of marriage which is not that between a man and a woman, of legally permissible age, with specific prohibitions against consanguinity. A man cannot marry his sister or mother, for example. Case law, based on oral tradition and usage, has the same force and standing in courts as laws enacted by legislatures, unless the enacted law expressly repeals the tradition of the history of case law. So far as has been determined, the case law supporting traditional marriage has not been repealed by any legislative act.

[WOSG]

I made the same claim in a letter to the editor.

let's see if they print it.

[Little Bill]

'judicial tyranny'

Hopefully the election of Scott Brown scares enough of the Members of the Great and General Court to get this on the ballot. The last time I talked to seamole, who has done an excellent job of rousing the troops, putting an opposition group together has been slow.

The battle starts again on 3/11, when the General Court reconvenes in Constitutional Convention.