Thursday, October 26, 2006

One Nation Under...Judges???

Once again liberal judges have over-stepped their constitutional authority in order to make laws. The NJ Supreme Court has mandated that the NJ Legislature either legalize gay marriage or civil unions in 6 months or else. They even said they can find no place in the constitution for such a law however they "feel" it is time to stop being intolerant.

Since when have we become a nation of feelings as opposed to laws???

8 comments:

Ron said...

"Since when have we become a nation of feelings as opposed to laws".

Since 'liberal thought' took over the courts.

Ian McGibboney said...

It's always fun to hear conservatives ridicule "activist judges" and call for "rule of law." Because when it comes to abortion and similar issues, you guys can't get enough judicial activism:

"Overturn Roe v. Wade!"

"The Supreme Court ruled that Bush won! It may not have been their jurisdiction, but you need to GET OVER IT!"

A large percentage, if not actually a majority, of sitting federal judges were appointed by Republican admonistrations. The Supreme Court is currently the farthest right it's ever been. But apparently that's okay, because you agree with them.

Cajun Tiger said...

Ian...Roe was one of the biggest cases of judicial activism in history...finding a "right" that was no where in the constitution, so overtuning it would not be activism it would be returning to the original intent of the constitution.

For the last time, the Supreme Court didn't rule that Bush won, the ruled that three counts was enough and that Gore couldn't continue to gerrymander his counts trying to find one that said he won. Every major news outlet has counted the votes since then and not one has said the votes would have said Gore won.

I want judges that don't use "feelings" to decide what the constitution says. I want judges that don't make decisions based on European laws. I want judges that don't make decisions based on what the majority of the world thinks. I want judges that follows what our constitution says and that alone.

Ian McGibboney said...

The problem with such a view, CT, is that the Constitution is a flexible document. If it weren't, then it wouldn't have lasted as long as it has. We have applied Constitutional law to legal areas that the Founding Fathers could not even have fathomed. And we have been able to do so because the drafters knew of this inevitability and composed accordingly.

I think our legal system has been good so far with not basing decisions on "feelings." No ruling is a vacuum, nor do they come without justification by the justices. That doesn't mean every decision is good; but it does ensure that judicial rulings are not made on a whim.

The current drive by conservatives to overturn decades of settled law on religious and emotional grounds is judicial activism of the highest order, and its advocates look like hypocrites when they pretend otherwise.

Cajun Tiger said...

Ian...that is where you and libs are wrong. The Constitution is not a flexible or living document. It was never meant to be as the Founding Fathers made it VERY difficult to change it so that emotion couldn't rule the day.

So instead of following the prescribed methods of changing laws they know would never be changed by the people, libs go to the courts which is in direct opposition of how the Constitution lays out the separation of powers.

Ian McGibboney said...

What I mean by flexibility is that the tenets of the Constitution--and particularly the Bill of Rights--are flexible enough to apply to issues that weren't necessarily around in the Founders' time. It means that we haven't had to draft completely new Constitutions over the centuries in order to handle a changing America.

I agree with you, CT, that the Constitution should not be changed on emotion. The amendment process has been very good in preventing that.

If anyone is trying to change the Constitution, it's the GOP, with its ever-present flag-burning amendment, anti-abortion amendments and questionable court rulings. And how about that PATRIOT Act, which subverts several amendments in the Bill of Rights? How are any of these pieces of legislation respectful to the Constitution?

Cajun Tiger said...

The problem with the liberal courts is that they have gone way overboard in assuming rights no where expressed in the Constitution. Please tell me how a right to an abortion can be drawn from a right of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Seems to me that killing a baby and depriving it of life is in direct oppostion to what the Constitution says hence the effort to correct that error.

As far as the flag amendment, I don't support that. As much as I would want to punch someone burning our flag, it is there right to be idiots and my freedom is way more than just the flag.

On the Patriot Act, I do have some issues with parts of it, but on the whole it fixed some major problems in our system of communicating and fighting a different type of war.

And then the one you didn't mention, marriage amendment. The Repubs are doing it the way prescribed by the Constitution. Allowing people to vote not forcing anything down their throat by judicial fiat like in MA and NJ.

Little Miss Chatterbox said...

The only good thing about this is maybe it will light a fire under conservative NJ voters to vote Republican to prevent more of this from happening. Although I'm glad I don't live in NJ since Kean is a pathetic excuse for a Republican. Activist judges are one of my biggest aggravations for this very reason!!!