[Mariner]

While a Federal Court is reaching when it compels a state to expend funds for any any purpose, they are dreaming in another world when they think they can compel the US Congress to do anything.

Heretofore, any Judicial orders have been voluntarily complied with by both the Legislative and Executive branches.

I look forward to the day that stops, in a very public, high-profile way.

[hanamizu]

they are dreaming in another world when they think they can compel the US Congress to do anything.

---

I agree, but their compelling states to appropriate money shows their thinking. The idea that a single Federal judge can overturn votes of the people (and I’m not talking about a vote to return to slavery, but a vote to preserve marriage as it always had been as happened in California) is, to me, outrageous.

It is routine for judges to order elected officials to do or not do certain things and threaten them with contempt of court if they fail to comply—see sheriff Arpaio.

I understand the Founders’ logic in making them lifetime appointments—they wanted the judges to be apolitical—but the Constitution was written before the rise of political parties and the Founders naively thought that all Americans would “be on the same team”. A homosexual Federal judge in California didn’t like the result of voter-led state Constitutional amendment and he simply struck it down. I can’t imagine the Founders wanted to put that kind of power in an unelected man’s hands.