Posted on 05/16/2008 8:12:15 PM PDT by T.L.Sink
Judicial Watch issued the following statement on the ruling by the California Supreme Court that imposes same-sex marriage on the state:
"Today, a bare majority of the California Supreme Court, in an audacious political power grab, usurped the democratic process by redefining marriage. The laws of this nation rely on the proper functioning of the courts, including a proper balance of powers, and the judiciary's ability to demonstrate restraint. This ruling undermines the rule of law. Bigamists and other 'polyamorists' will take solace in this activist and radical ruling because, if its logic is followed, it will be difficult to keep marriage limited to only two people. Judges are not free to rewrite statutes to say what they would like or what they believe to be better social policy." Judicial Watch had filed an amicus brief with the California Supreme Court.
(Excerpt) Read more at judicialwatch.org ...
The justices are apoointed initially, but must be retained by a majority of voters in elections.
According to the article you attached, they aren’t really elected. The system is the same as in most other states - they are APPOINTED and afterwards at various intervals their tenure is CONFIRMED by the public if there are no grounds for recalling them. And the latter is nearly impossible. A vote against retention means very little.
Right - that’s what I said to sproculator. Here in FL multitudes of people voted against retaining some of the justices of the rogue FL Supreme Court after their idiotic behavior during the notorius Bush/Gore 2000 election debacle. The judicial system laughed at the people. Lawyers write these laws and they look out for their own interests first.
Yeah..I guess there's no possible federal interest here, ie Gore v Bush--Florida SC) where it would advance to the federal system and then be affirmed by the 9th circus and then overturned by SCOTUS.
According to the article you attached, they aren’t really elected.You are obfuscating the point. The initial assertion was that California Supreme Court justices are "unelected" -- which is in fact a false assertion based on the existence of a citizen electoral mechanism in the process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.