Replies

Take a look at what the man has to say now!! Go Herman!

I like this guy more and more. Hope he can take out Isakson in the primary.

A guy with guts. He won't fit in with the current crowd, but he is just what we need.

Just sent Mr Cain a donation. I wish him the best of luck. What are the dynamics of the primary down there?

In my opinion, the Mass. legislature should say to the Court that it has overstepped its bounds, is infringing on the law-making prerogatives of the Legislative Branch, and that the latter will ignore their attempts to make law.

It's time the legislatures around this country got some cojones, invoked Separation of Powers, and told the Court to shove it..

Hopefully Cain is gaining momentum in GA.

Once again I have to ask people to please reconsider the can-o-worms being opened by proposing a constitutional amendment to redress a specific grievance. For those who are familiar with my arguments, I'm sorry to keep boring you, but it needs to be done. In particular:

1. Amendments are easier to pass than it may seem at first. The first requirement is a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. That happens all the time. Just look at the margins by which the PATRIOT Act was passed: All but a small handful of votes in the lower house, and all but one in the Senate. And that's not unusual at all. The next requirement is the approval of the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. That's not difficult either. The (informally) proposed flag-burning amendment was brought before Congress by petitions from 49 state legislatures (including Massachusetts!). The only restraint on rampant amendments to the Constitution is that it's still considered somewhat taboo to tamper with our most basic document. Every time an amendment is proposed for the redress of a specific grievance, that taboo is eroded further, and the results can be unpredictable and catastrophic.

2. A constitutional amendment, far from rebuking activist judges, will actually encourage them further. By amending the Constitution, we're tacitly admitting (however much we protest to the contrary) that they had the correct interpretation of the Constitution prior to the amendment. By default, it will give them carte-blanche to do whatever else isn't specifically prohibited by special amendment. Their attitude will be that if we don't like their ruling, we can always amend the Constitution. Even under a dangerously expedited process, we won't be able to amend it faster than they can pump out bad rulings.

As for alternative remedies to the situation, we have:

1. Impeachment. As others have pointed out already, this would be very difficult politically. But the more we concentrate our efforts to that end, the more attainable it will be.

2. Restriction of appellate power. Congress has this power over the federal judiciary, as part of its ordinary powers. It should definitely make use of it. The appellate power is the stick by which the federal judiciary pushes states around.

3. And finally, states should just ignore unconstitutional rulings from federal courts. If Georgia is told that it must grant marriage benefits to a same-sex couple who were "married" in Massachusetts, Georgia should say to the ordering court, "After careful mature study of your decision, we've arrived at the conclusion that it's not worth a pile of mule dung, but you're welcome to try to enforce it here anyway. Regards, ".