Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: LexBaird
How is it unconstitutional for the court to interpret the law in the absence of legally defined terms? We agree that their interpretation sucks rocks, but, barring legislative override, they were within their powers and duties to administer judgment over vaguely defined terms.

If they thought the law was unconstitutional, they should have overturned it.

But even they didn't have the chutzpah to do that.

As it was, their opinion was just that. An opinion. One that the legislative branch refused to endorse. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney made no such refusal.

Exactly what do you think would have happened to Mitt Romney if he had simply done nothing?

Do you think the legislature would have had the guts to impeach him for following their example of inaction?

I'll have to address your response late tonight...

164 posted on 02/04/2008 3:12:42 PM PST by EternalVigilance (2008: The election in which any memory of the past is obliterated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies ]


To: EternalVigilance
If they thought the law was unconstitutional, they should have overturned it.

That argument is addressed in the ruling. Read it.

As it was, their opinion was just that. An opinion.

No, it was a legal ruling in a court case. There were majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions filed, but the majority opinion ruled the case. To argue that it was merely an advisory is flat wrong.

One that the legislative branch refused to endorse. Unfortunately, Mitt Romney made no such refusal.

Again, you misunderstand the sequence. The legislature had two courses of action; do nothing and let the court ruling stand for the interpretation of "civil marriage", or pass new legislation barring homosexual marriage as they do consanguineous marriage. They did nothing, so the ruling stands. They endorsed it by not acting to override.

Do you think the legislature would have had the guts to impeach him for following their example of inaction?

Maybe. It depends on if they thought they could get away with the backlash from the citizenry, who supported Mitt in the effort to get an amendment through. That was stopped by legislative manoeuvrings. The legislature was clearly supporting the court here, but the majority of the people were against the decision.

Most likely they would have stayed out of the way and let some homosexual couple make it a Federal 14th A. case, and Romney would have ended up looking like George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door. And then, we would have had homosexual marriage in every state.

I'll have to address your response late tonight...

Take your time and read the links. Dunno when I'll be back to reply though; got a busy schedule the next couple of nights.

167 posted on 02/04/2008 3:48:49 PM PST by LexBaird (Behold, thou hast drinken of the Aide of Kool, and are lost unto Men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson