"I believe, though don't quote me on this, that the Catholic Charities, which had previously consented to place children in same-sex homes, changed that policy, at which point lawsuit was brought against them for violation of Massachusett's anti-discrimination laws. At which point I assume the judiciary ruled that they had indeed violated these laws.
Can you show me the MA law that forces men and women of conscience to violate their closely-held beliefs if they want to help the weakest and neediest among us?
Or is this just more judicial tyranny, enforced by Mitt Romney's executive branch?"
No, no I can't. You're missing the point and you continually miss the point. I suspect it's deliberate. You're continually putting forth arguments that go something like this "what an awful, absurd usurpation of judicial power". I agree. Both of these are awful, absurd usurpations. But then you're somehow, by some rhetorical trick as yet unknown, extending that to mean that the decision is void. You're using the exact same logical inanities that liberals continually use to justify there lovely "living constitutionalism". You don't like a result, therefore it's not allowed. Do you accept judicial review? Do you accept the principle that courts can overturn "unconstitutional laws"? Do you accept the principle that the Supreme can interpret the meaning of statutes? Because, if so it seems to me that your overall boils down to: "the Court's must overturn unconstitutional laws, and interpret statutes, but only when they're laws I believe are unconstitutional, and only when they're statutes that advance me cause". Again, this is precisely the logic that dovetails into living constitutionalism. Either the Courts have the power to interpet legislation, or they do not. They cannot, by any reasonable formulation, only interpret legislation that aid your cause.
Just as I suspected.
You're missing the point and you continually miss the point. I suspect it's deliberate.
I've stayed very much on point throughout this conversation.
You're continually putting forth arguments that go something like this "what an awful, absurd usurpation of judicial power". I agree. Both of these are awful, absurd usurpations.
Glad to hear it.
But then you're somehow, by some rhetorical trick as yet unknown, extending that to mean that the decision is void. You're using the exact same logical inanities that liberals continually use to justify there lovely "living constitutionalism". You don't like a result, therefore it's not allowed.
Wrong. I'm saying that when a court makes an unconstitutional ruling, the executive and the legislative branches have a sworn duty to, first, interpret the Constitution, and then check the judicial branch by every means available to them. Not turn around and use their power to enforce unconstitutional edicts, as Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney have done in very important cases in the recent past.
Do you accept judicial review?
Of course I do. I also accept "executive and legislative review." That's the point.
Do you accept the principle that courts can overturn "unconstitutional laws"?
Of course. But that's not what is at issue. What is at issue is the fact that we have a passel of judges who have been legislating from the bench, ignoring the clear words of our constitutions, the intent of the framers, bypassing the plain meanings of our laws, and dreaming up nonexistent emanations and penumbras from the bowels of their liberal hearts.
Do you accept the principle that the Supreme can interpret the meaning of statutes?
That's their job.
Because, if so it seems to me that your overall boils down to: "the Court's must overturn unconstitutional laws, and interpret statutes, but only when they're laws I believe are unconstitutional, and only when they're statutes that advance me cause".
I believe no such thing. Nice try.
Again, this is precisely the logic that dovetails into living constitutionalism. Either the Courts have the power to interpet legislation, or they do not. They cannot, by any reasonable formulation, only interpret legislation that aid your cause.
Again, you're just plain wrong, and attribute to me ideas that I don't hold.