The 'Republican Standard' of strict constructionist is a manipulative methodology designed to weaken the USA Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The 'idea' that Judges are simply 'puppets' to the Legislative Branch is completely "W"rong. The USA Constitution and Bill of Rights has three branches of government as 'CHECKS and BALANCES' to power. When strict constructionists are placed on The Supreme Court it weakens the power of the Judiciary while pandering to the Legislature.
Why is that DANGEROUS to freedom and democracy?
It is dangerous to the USA people, because, if the Legislature passes poor and/or exploitive laws there is no other venue to defeat those laws except the court system. The Judiciary has to be responsive to the impact of laws on the people of this nation. Laws can be victimizing and cause issues with crime and social injustice, therefore, the Judiciary has to have insight to the people that live within the laws of this country.
There is no such thing as 'activist judges.' It is political rhetoric.
There were two events today occuring within our Judical System concurrently. A new Justice to the USA Supreme Court and an appeal to the California Marriage laws. I have no doubt that the nominee of President Obama will face the question, "Do you believe the USA Supreme Court should rule on Same Sex Marriage and why to do you hold that opinion?"
The decision to place Judge Sonia Sotomayor in nomination to the Supreme Court was more than admirable. She is eminently qualified, there should be no challenge to her nomination. If there is one can literally call it racism. The woman belongs on the Supreme Court. The insight she brings with her considering her heritage is completely invaluable. She will be a great Justice.
I thought the video by The New York Post 'picked up' the entertaining humor of President Obama that occurs at times of joy. "Here Comes the Judge." Very cute and a little bit of fun at a time in our country when fun doesn't come easily.
The marriages that occured while under the law upholding gay marriages stand as they should. I found that to be a real coup by the gay community. Any legislation and/or court challenges now have to take into account 'why' a drastic change occured that ended the rights of those that had come before. Not only that, but, 18,000 legal marriages will speak loud and clear to the benefits and glory of marriage over 'partnerships.'
Partnerships belong in contract law. Marriage is a matter of the heart. The gay community is absolutely correct in pursuing their unalienable right to marriage. I believe the decision today, regardless of its validity in Constitutional Law by 'grandfathering' the 18.000 marriages serves a sincere and stark reality regarding 'bigoted populous' decisions made in the privacy of a voting both and supported by vicious hate mongers.
Gay members of the USA should have the very same rights as their straight oppositioners. The ruling to uphold the proposition banning equal rights to the gay community was due to a federal law that cast its shadow on the proceedings today. The Defense of Marriage Act compelled the California Judiciary to make the decision today. I really believe their hands were tied to act any differently.
Unfortunately, The Defense of Marriage Act will cause these decisions UNTIL it is challenged at the Supreme Court. It is 'challengeable' by the way. It is discriminatory and insults the Equal Protection Clause as well as insulting the Due Process Clause as 'the legality' of marriage is simply a matter of 'legal process' and SHOULD BE blind to gender of the participants in the marriage.
The gay community is more insightful than any of its straight constituentes. Why? Because by insisting they are 'more than partners' in a relationship they hold on to the REALITY of 'pursuit of happiness' when choosing a life time mate. Having a mate is far more than just a partnership and the 'culture and language' of this country supports its unique place in 'quality of life.'
To challenge the gay community and its unalienable right of love, affection and longing for a lifetime mate, actually defeats and insults the entire cultural component of marriage in the society. To discriminate based on gender in applying 'equal rights' is to say 'gender' is a valuable component allowed under the law to distinguish equality. THAT reality is an oxymoron. One cannot discriminate and have equality at the same time. The same 'type' of reality is why Brown vs. Board of Ed was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1954. The 'language' of the Constitution was used to victimize children and I might note that the Brown decision wasn't made correctly UNTIL there was a Black member on the court.
The argument that 'won' the decision with Brown was the fact that 'equal protection' was unfairly leveled at all parties. In other words, all the children, whether black or white were the victim of segregation and NONE were treated equally. If those same dynamics are included in the Gay Marriage Right, it is all the people that are victim to the law. The Defense of Marriage Act even in its verbiage 'pits' homosexual vs heterosexual otherwise it would not need a DEFENSE. The law attempts to elevate a false sense of righteousness and victimizes not only the gay community, but also members of the heterosexual community that seek to 'include' all people in Civil Rights. The law victimizes us all and not just one community with equal protections. The entire idea that the gay community is treated equally doesn't even come close when the 'quality of life' and 'pursuit of happiness' is considered.
The movement has to go forward. This is a generational problem exacerbated by 'politics' enhanced by a culture of fear. It is morally wrong to be allow fear of any member of this country. To realize The Defense of Marriage Act actually identifies that fear, is to realize, how very "W"rong legislation can be and how completely it victimizes citizens when passed for the purpose of politics over Civil Rights.
