State's Gay Adoption Ban Goes To Appeals Court (Florida)

CBS 4 Miami ^ | 08/26/09

[Recovering_Democrat]

State attorneys will make their case Wednesday in Miami before an appeals court as to why Florida should continue its strict ban on gays and lesbians adopting children.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Maybe someone ought to teach these gay activists that legislatures make laws--not judges. Now the state, to defend the law, has to spend money teaching people THE LEGISLATURE WRITES THE LAWS--NOT BLACK ROBED JACKBALLS.

[madprof98]

I’m sure the lurid case in North Carolina will be ruled entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Sure would like to see some discussion of this case. The local media seems really really biased.

Florida ping.

[TomOnTheRun]

THE LEGISLATURE WRITES THE LAWS--NOT BLACK ROBED JACKBALLS.

But the judges are who we go to when there is a question about whether or not a law is constitutional.

[Recovering_Democrat]

The judge wrote law—the law stood for 33 years—and one judge decided it was “unconstitutional”. That is a travesty, noob.

If these clowns want to change the law, they need to do it via the appropriate channels. And that isn’t a handpicked judge.

[TomOnTheRun]

The judge wrote law—the law stood for 33 years—and one judge decided it was “unconstitutional”. That is a travesty, noob.

And yet that is the way constitutional review works. If nobody challenges it the law stands. If somebody challenges, after 33 second or 33 years doesn't matter, then the matter goes before a judge. The judge judges. People can appeal higher if the believe the judge was in error. That is what is happening here. That is the way the system is SUPPOSED to work. It's basic rule of law.

[TomOnTheRun]

And that isn’t a handpicked judge.

This is why there are higher courts of review - handpicked judges can be overruled.

[lovesdogs]

Gay activists want to use children to shove their agenda down our throats. That just shows you how spiteful they are. There is no reason that a little child should ever have to explain (or understand for that matter) to the other kids why they have two mommies or daddies.

[Waryone]

You comment as if this is the first challenge to the law in 33 years. That is not the case here. This law has withstood multiple challenges. If they want a change in the law, the right way would be to go through the legislature instead of trying to hand pick judges and courts to see if they can find a few sympathetic to their case.

Why don’t they change the law the right way? Simple, they would lose big time and they know it. They want the rule of the black robed oligarchy, not the republic we have because they can corrupt the minds of a few but they can’t corrupt all the people.

So sorry but I think your reference to constitutional review is just another loophole for degenerates to skirt the will of the public and tie up the courts. No matter, in Florida, if they keep trying throw out the old law, we’ll just have to pass another constitutional amendment.

[Clemenza]

We are NOT a mobocracy ruled by the whim of the (fickle, often stupid) masses. We are a constitutional republic, and judicial review is a cornerstone of that republic. You would be singing a different tune if the masses decided to vote to take out guns away.

[fwdude]

This is insane. If homosexuals cannot adopt by law, why the heck do they get to foster?

[fwdude]

You would be singing a different tune if the masses decided to vote to take out guns away.

Your argument is in a completely different universe. The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Deviant sexuality isn't.

[Waryone]

Go back and read what I wrote. I did mention republic, not mobocracy. The problem comes when people feel they can all deluge the court systems and cherry pick judges who will rule in their favor instead of allowing the republic to work as it should. The form of judicial review they favor is actually a constitutional attack where they continuously look for sympathetic judges to rule in their favor. They never accept clear cut judicial rulings that go against them and will file case after case with judge after judge until they get the outcome they want.

And I won’t be surprised when they use the same cherry picking tactics to take our guns away. Take a look at the North, they and their black robed oligarchies have already honed their gun grabbing skills well there.

[Clemenza]

Actually, we don't have a "black robed oligarchy" up here. Traditionally, the judiciary has been dominated by political hacks who usually rubber stamp whatever the political machines want. Occassionally, you get a "good government" type that passes through, but these are often merely a more pointy-headed version of traditional judges.

Poltical machines and their clients run things around here. With much of the "middle class" dependent on the government for employment (as cops, teachers, contractors, etc.) the system perpetuates itself.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Wow, I never realized that. To think: all these years I have been in the dark on the concept of judicial review. I guess judges can write law after all. Damn, let us just do away with the legislature, then—we can just have citizens ask judges to tell us what the law ought to be. Think of the money we will save...and the time! No need for messy debate in the halls...we can just discuss it in front of a judge and let THEM write our laws. Or, we can insist judges look at a law and say: hey, the people of this state have spoken through their lawful legislative process. If you dont like the law, change it that way. Yeah, that ought to be how it is done, since that is the way the founders intended.

[TomOnTheRun]

So sorry but I think your reference to constitutional review is just another loophole for degenerates to skirt the will of the public and tie up the courts. No matter, in Florida, if they keep trying throw out the old law, we’ll just have to pass another constitutional amendment.

The fact that they keep challenging it suggests that at least some people sincerely believe it to be unjust and unconstitutional. They may be sincerely wrong but they are right to challenge if they feel it is unjust and unconstitutional law. I would never ask you or anybody else to cease legal challenges to a law that they felt was unjust and unconstitutional. I might try to persuade somebody that the law was, in fact, just and constitutional but that's entirely different.

Bully on the idea for the amendment! A constitutional amendment is entirely apropriate if the SSC rules that the law is unconstitutional.

You comment as if this is the first challenge to the law in 33 years. That is not the case here. This law has withstood multiple challenges. If they want a change in the law, the right way would be to go through the legislature instead of trying to hand pick judges and courts to see if they can find a few sympathetic to their case

How many times the law has been challenged over the years isn't exactly relevant to my comment. Each of those challenges have used different legal arguments. As long as the basis for review is different they can keep challenging. If they handpick a judge so be it - he can be overruled easily enough if he uses poor judgement. This is they way constitutional challenges are supposed to work - so it seems as if the rule of law is running properly.

[TomOnTheRun]

Wow, I never realized that. To think: all these years I have been in the dark on the concept of judicial review. I guess judges can write law after all. Damn, let us just do away with the legislature, then—we can just have citizens ask judges to tell us what the law ought to be. Think of the money we will save...and the time! No need for messy debate in the halls...we can just discuss it in front of a judge and let THEM write our laws. Or, we can insist judges look at a law and say: hey, the people of this state have spoken through their lawful legislative process. If you dont like the law, change it that way. Yeah, that ought to be how it is done, since that is the way the founders intended.

Your sarcasm is appreciated but it also fails to actually address the point. The founders were still around when constitutional review came into play. Some of the very laws they passed failed constitutional review. It seems that they had the opportunity to nip that in the bud and they didn't - even when it bit them and their laws. A judge issuing a ruling that a law is not constitutional is simply not the same thing as a judge "writing laws". You've expressed outrage that the legislature has had a law found uncsonstitutional but you haven't actually pointed to anything that brings the long established process of judicial review into question or pointed to a way that it has gone wrong. Disagreeing with the outcome doesn't invalidate the process.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Of course I addressed the point. Your apparent desire to leave all final decisions up to judges is what was never addressed. Let me be clear: Judges are not meant to write law--their job is to rule on EXISTING LAW as determined by the legislature. If judges find there was an unconstitutional mode in which the law was passed and/or enforced, you might have a case. As far as I know, that is not the case in this particular ruling.

And you're not entirely correct about the beginning of the Republic. The founding fathers DID fight the blacked robed kangaroos. A strong message was sent with the passage of the 11th Amendment; courts' jurisdictions were to be limited. For a while, I think the third branch got the message.

The unfortunate reality is that the executive and legislative branches of our governments have been, within the last 30 years, too quick to bow their knees at the altars of benches.

Another "problem" seems to be that when many of the laws that reflect the will of the people are passed, legislators do not include explicit language limiting the role of the courts in any legal action taken as a result of the law's enforcement.

BTW, I also disagree with your assertion "disagreeing with the outcome doesn't invalidate the process". So much evil has been done via the courts--letting criminals walk the street for minor technical infractions by police, invalidating bans a murderous procedure on nearly-born infants, and rights to "privacy" and the "commerce clause" being twisted to justify an ever-increasing government intrusion into our lives--that the "OUTCOME" of a court's decision has everything to do with the process! After all, the OUTCOME is what ends up creating society.

I'm not about to put black robed intruders on a pedestal. Maybe I'd feel different if we had more judges that understood "original intent", or what some call "constructionists" more. We don't. That wasn't the case with this judge.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I have no idea why they get to foster.

[Recovering_Democrat]

BUMP.