Can A Supreme Court Re-define Words?

self-vanity | 7/26/03 | Eastbound

[Eastbound]

In a recent discussion on a 'right to marry' thread, a new poster made the statement that the Mass. supreme court was in the process of 're-defining' the word, 'marriage'' to include homosexual unions. Throughout the history of the human race, the word, 'marriage,' always referred to the union of a man and a woman. In fact, the legal dictionary specifically defines 'marriage' as pertaining to a man and a woman.

The question I would like to address is not whether homosexuals do or do not have the 'right' to marry, but more importanty, does a supreme court have the right or authority to re-define any noun that has been previously defined (both legally and socially) as a very specific and un-ambiguous thing.

For example, can the supreme court legally re-define the color, 'red,' to include some shades of yellow or orange which have heretofore been defined as a wave lengths existing between specific high and low frequency limits?

For example: Suppose I wanted my den painted any shade of blue and the contractor painted it red. I sue and lose because the court said red was a shade of blue, re-defining the color frequency limits to include red to the previously-defined blue spectrum. In essence, the court re-defined what constituted the color, blue.

If the supreme court can add to the definition of a word, then we have to assume that it has the authority to subtract from the definition of a word. Think of the possibilities when it comes to the Second Amendment.

I see no difference between the court changing the definition of the word 'marriage' and the word, 'blue.' If the court is allowed to follow through on this, I am pursuaded that the 'rule of law' as we know and practice it will be destroyed. Am I wrong?

[William Terrell]

Let's redefine the word "soda" and include within it "beer". Since no one can take away a definition except by making it obsolete, the primary definition would remain and a secondary meaning would be added. So now beer is a soft drink.

(Interlude)

"Oh, dear, so glad you're home! How was the pajama party?"

"Great Mom! We had lots of snacks and sodas."

[Eastbound]

When the laws become nebulous, ambiguous and chaotic, institutions will fail and it will be time for we, the people (the true court of last resort) to re-define the the limits and duties of the three branches of government. Actually, its way past time, imo. I think the government would welcome that in the same way a drug-crazed maniac knows he can't control himself and secretly wants somebody to stop him.

If even the temple of olden days had to be cleansed periodically, how much moreso the courts of men?

[Eastbound]

Thanks for the bump. I think if enough people read this thread, somebody's going to come up with a workable remedy.

[Eastbound]

Thanks for the reply, FC. Excellent example

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Aren't traffic lights uniform, with red on the bottom, yellow in the middle, and green on top? Doesn't this then mean that the colors serve no purpose?

[Eastbound]

That's what it boils down to, it appears.

('Founders??? What Founders? We don't need no steenking Founders!' - - Da Courts) :<

[Eastbound]

" . . . to Constitutionalize an indifference to the institution of one man/one woman as the basis of families bears on Western culture's very survival."

Well said, NCB. I believe that to be true as well. Hoping that the nation will wake up and stop this destruction. I have no idea where the brakes and reverse gear are on this hell-bound freight train.

[Consort]

That's what it boils down to, it appears.

Yes, unfortunately. Same thing with the State Supreme Courts. They could pretty much do what they want.

[FreedomCalls]

Aren't traffic lights uniform, with red on the bottom, yellow in the middle, and green on top?

No, actually here in the western part of the U.S. they are often placed horizontally.

[Eastbound]

"It's pretty heady stuff to be a liberal supreme court justice, free to redesign the lives of your fellow citizens at whim--with no accountability whatsoever."

Thanks for the reply. Is it really true that there is no accountability, Kevin? I worry about that. Have we become so inured to these crazy antics that we are not looking for a remedy, other than waiting and hoping enough true judges will fill the benches in time to stop this mad plunge to national suicide? If I was physically able and knowledgable enough, I'd be polling, visiting, and picketing congress. I think they should be refreshed with the logic expressed in Reply # 30.

I'm not familiar with Justice Brown, but I'll take your word that she should be on the SC. So here's your tag, big and bold:

(Put Justice Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court--NOW) "

[FreedomCalls]

Another one.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Okay, but they always are in the same order, right?

What would happen if they just changed the order, randomly? I suspect color-blind people would have a more difficult time driving.

[Eastbound]

" . . . inflicting this abuse upon our nation."

I agree. I would also RE-DEFINE terrorism to include those acts of abuse, from those both foreign and domestic. Thanks for the reply, unspun.

[Freedom4US]

Interesting point, the word "Citizen" has been a pet peeve of mine for a while, because it's rarely used in print or the media anymore. Apparently, we're all just "individuals" or "residents" now..

It's clear to me, at least, that the pointed non-use of the word is deliberate.

[Eastbound]

"Come on East."

Hey, I'm ready. ;>

. . . but I'm still holding out for solutions before starting over. Got Remedy? Thanks for the reply, K.

[Freedom4US]

(As an aside, I suspect Clinton was getting ready to unload a legal bombshell so they let him slide rather than get in a public argument about the merits of fiction jurisdiction where verbs and adverbs reign, versus the 'now' jurisdiction where nouns are king. Clinton played his trump card and rattled the court when he let them know he knew what 'mirror' law was when he made his famous what is 'is' statement. They knew he was ready to blow the whistle if they didn't back off. And back off they did.)

I've re-read this a few times, and freely admit I have no idea what you're talking about, but am interested. Could you elaborate a bit?

[RightWhale]

It appears that definitions of words change by a variety of common means, including court decisions. Consider the word 'harassment.' It's been expanded beyond annoy and pester to become an entire legal industry, and recently. The list of things that can be considered harassment is now so large that many employers are required to provide training to the entire workstaff in that word.

Marriage is mentioned in the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights, but it isn't defined there. The definition of marriage affects many aspects of our communities including land use zoning. What is a single family residence? Can it include a home that boards a few troubled youngsters under contract to the state who are not related by blood or adoption? What is marriage but a contract for the purpose of raising a family? What is a family? Are dogs family members? There is no end to this, and so there is no end to employment for attorneys, judges, and those in the bureaucracy who write regulations. Yet which of these making moral judgements for the community have formal training in ethics and how are morals determined in the first place? It's a big question you have asked and the entire library will have to be on your reading list. Just don't listen to anybody under 29 39 49 59.

[Eastbound]

"I'm glad FR exists. I need reminders there are people who feel, as I do, that there are forebodings on the horizon."

"I fear for the Republic."

As do I, bro. I place these not-so-subtle changes by the courts in the same category as acts of sabotage by an enemy attempting to take over the country. It is forcing us to think outside the box for remedy -- and to be heard. I truly hope someone is listening.

Best wishes and thanks for the reply, FRiend.

[tpaine]

I'm not familiar with Justice Brown, but I'll take your word that she should be on the SC. So here's your tag, big and bold:
(Put Justice Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court--NOW) "
-Eastbound-



I like Brown..

But you & kevin should read some of her opinions before you get all knee jerked about her supposed 'political correctness'.

Sandy posted some of her opinions starting at post 84, here:

Bush Nominates Pro-Life Black Woman to Nation's Second Highest Court
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/953975/posts?page=116