[Khepera]

GOOD NEWS....Maybe

[Khepera]

GOOD NEWS....Maybe

[Rummyfan]

"We find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right," the appeals court said.

Activist judiciary? Where? Who?

[gedeon3]

Bwaaaaaaaaahhhhhaaaaahhahahaha!!!!!

[digger48]

And who is Judge Hyphenated-name?

Can we guess?

[txroadkill]

"We find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right," the appeals court said.

Gee, you mean a judge can't do that??? /sarcasm

[NavVet]

"We find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right," the appeals court said. ------------------------------ Re-writing the constitution on the fly. Gee, I wonder where she got that idea.

[conservative in nyc]

I'd bet this case is going to the New York State Court of Appeals, NY's "Supreme Court" without the name. We'll see how they rule.

[Thanatos]

Here is a copy of the ruling itself

Hernandez v Robles

[Pharmboy]

Woo-boy, they have just gone into DEFCON 3 at the NY Times. They will be sputtering in tomorrow's edition from page one to the editorials. Can't wait...

[Thanatos]

three paragraphs from the ruling:

"We find that the motion court erred in granting plaintiffs summary judgment and finding the provisions of the DRL unconstitutional to the extent that they do not permit same-sex marriage. However, we find it even more troubling that the court, upon determining the statute to be unconstitutional, proceeded to rewrite it and purportedly create a new constitutional right, an act that exceeded the court's constitutional mandate and usurped that of the Legislature.

As we stated in Raum v Restaurant Assocs. (252 AD2d 369, 370 [1998], appeal dismissed 92 NY2d 946 [1998]), "[s]ince it is not within the judicial province to redefine terms given clear meaning in a statute, [a] plaintiff's sole recourse [in such instance] lies in legislative action" (see also Greenwald v H & P 29th St. Assocs., 241 AD2d 307 [1997]; Matter of Cooper, 187 AD2d 128 [1993], appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 801 [1993]). Here, the relevant provisions of the DRL, despite the absence of an express prohibition against same-sex marriage, clearly do not contemplate such unions (2004 Ops Atty Gen No. I 2004-1, at 1005 [*6]["the inclusion in the DRL of gender-specific terms to describe parties to a marriage, as well as the historical context of its enactment, indicates that the Legislature did not intend to authorize same-sex marriage"]). Generally, in such circumstances, "courts [should not] correct supposed . . . omissions or defects in legislation" (McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 73, 1 at 147-148 [1971]).

The role of the courts is "to recognize rights that are supported by the Constitution and history, but the power to create novel rights is reserved for the people through the democratic and legislative processes" (Goodridge v Dept. of Pub. Health, 440 Mass 309, 356, 798 NE2d 941, 978 [2003] [Spina, J., dissenting]). Deprivation of legislative authority, by judicial fiat, to make important, controversial policy decisions prolongs divisiveness and defers settlement of the issue; it is a miscarriage of the political process involved in considering such a policy change (see Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Speaking in a Judicial Voice, 67 NYU L Rev 1185, 1205-1208 [1992] [urging a measured approach in judicial decisionmaking and citing in contrast the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade decision, which prematurely ended the political process for legislative change on the abortion issue and resulted in protracted controversy])."

[jw777]

Justice is Served.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Wow! From New York, yet. Maybe there is hope.