Those here know I obviously disagree with the Conneticut court ruling forcing their personal opinion on the citizens.
I find it unbelievable that the governor (a republican) said that she believes that the public disagrees with the ruling, but nothing can/should be done about it.
"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision -- either legislatively or by amending the state constitution -- will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling."
The question for democrats, and so-called progressives is:
Do you want to live in a country where 1 vote by an unelected government official can over-ride the will of the people?
Do you want to make it normal as in Bush v Gore where judicial decisions can be predicted based on political leanings?
If you disagreed with Bush v Gore why not try to be consistent?
I know this site and many on the left often don't think of the consequences of tactics and principle but think if:
a judge found a constitutional right of any property tax payer to use their money for religious schools instead of the public schools if that's their choice?
a judge found a constitutional right ot fairness and forced npr to allow right-wingers on their air for 50% of the time.
a judge found that their state constitution protected unborn children and that their state superceded the federal government?
It goes on and on.
These issues weren't in the states' constitutions. They were not thought about at the time.
Yet, we have judges inventing legal rationale to promote their personal veiwpoint.
Many of you here agree with their view, so it's ok?
Find me the judge that agrees with gay marriage personally but doesn't try to invent legal reasoning, or one that disagrees with abortion rights but honestly finds a right to privacy.
They would be honest judges.
If the judiciary is really just a rouse for political hacks then we will be in danger of losing our country at some point.
Right now, the people respect judicial rulings for the most part because of the credibility the instiution has.
But, a string of political decisions can change that.
Bush v. Gore was very political. I along with most people here disagreed with it, because the judges (both sides) used reasoning they have never used in the past and since.
If you truly believe in same sex marriage then let the people decide. Sadly, some will agree to it. In that case, the burden would be on people like me to change their minds.
But to invent constitutional issues that take power away from the people it is wrong.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
