The ruling today of California's Supreme Court overturning legislation requiring that marriage partners be singular and oppositely gendered now becomes the prime exhibit on the need for judicial restraint.
In November California voters will doubtless approve an amendment to their state's constitution defining marriage in the traditional way. In the meantime, the justices have their moment to bask in their self-defined superior moral judgment. In the months in between, Californians will deal with an even more intense version of the signature social chaos of the Left Coast.
We urge readers of this blog to recognize the sobering reality that one candidate running for POTUS is pledged to appoint federal judges who exercise restraint and read the law according to its original intent. The other is committed to judicial activism, the Living Constitution, and other labels that name the kind of thing that happened today in Sacramento. Since federal judges, appointed for life, live as long as Galapagos tortoises these days, the effects of the next election will be felt for a very long time.
5 comments:
in the vein of Zippy the Pinhead:
Galapagos tortoise!
Galapagos tortoise!!
Galapagos tortoise!!!
The noble readers of this blog like to maintain a high tone while addressing the issues.
rflzuxi
This is how tired of the whole gay rights thing the public has become. SWNID offers a serious post on a timely subject with an arresting image, and these are the comments.
Regarding the Sacramento case, some quick thoughts, if you don't mind.
The Judge in question is a republican appointed by a republican governor. The LA Times says, "legal scholars, ...have long characterized George and his court as cautious and middle of the road."
He and 4 other justices nullified the original gay marriage licenses and refused to take up the case then, insisting that it work its way up through the lower courts.
So in the case of this particular judge, Ronald George, is he an activist judge, a conservative judge who made an activist ruling, or is judicial activism just when you don't get your way? This is a more or less serious question.
Politicians have been stacking judges for a long time. You and I both know that. As well you and I both know that judges get lifetime appointments for very good reasons. (Although California judges do not.)
This constant cry of "judicial activism" (on both sides of the spectrum) and its attendant arguments that Judges be sacked or limited are far more worrying to me than most actual rulings
We argue not that judges are political animals or that lifetime appointments are in some sense important to the Republic's well being (though we think that a 16-year tenure on the federal bench would have the same effect). Our point is that these realities mean that there's plenty at stake for a long time in who gets elected in November.
We do argue, however, that at present conservatives have the better of liberals in claiming that their appointments are more respectful of the power of the legislature. Since the Civil Rights Movement, it has been the assumption of the political left that litigation offers more opportunity for their agenda when legislation doesn't pass. Conservatives don't much do that.
We also are blissfully unaware of the specific composition of the CA Supremes. But it doesn't matter who's an R and who's a D (cf. D. Souter in DC). The point remains that CA Supremes discovered an undiscovered right in their state constitution and overturned a law passed by their legislature in the process. This doesn't help the political process at all.
Post a Comment