EDITORIAL: Judicial imperialism

Umm excuse me, you have some interesting points but they are invalidated by your lack of understanding of the law and American History. You have a few misstatements: First you got your legal terms mixed up, or your fingers in a jumble, when you say: "contrary to an earlier state-constitutional amendment passed by voters." - You are referring to prop 22 in CA, which was NOT a state constitutional-amendment, it was a voter approved law that defined marriage between a man and women. Ahh hello. If it was an amendment and the supreme court overturned it (like they did with 22), it probably wouldn't have been on the ballot as the SAME WORDS as Prop 8. Imagine people voting on Loving vs. Virginia… interracial marriage didn’t have the popular vote until 30 years after it was ruled illegal to deny these unions. Secondly you say: "the rights of the people to vote for the policy outcomes they favor, the exercise of which has never before been considered harmful to anyone" UMM in the 1970's voters approved propositions to BAN DE-SEGRAGATION IN SCHOOLS. According to Cornel university law, "Voters in Washington, following a decision by the school board in Seattle to undertake a mandatory busing program, approved an initiative that prohibited school boards from assigning students to any but the nearest or next nearest school that offered the students’ course of study; there were so many exceptions, however, that the prohibition in effect applied only to busing for racial purposes." It was later overturned BECAUSE IT WAS HARMFULL AND A DIRECT EFFORT TO STOP black kids from getting in to WHITE SCHOOLS. If you dont like they way gays are legally appealing, why validate people who are ammending a constitution to deny legal rights?

Do the people determine the law or do the courts? If it is the courts, then we don't need the legislative system (well, they will have to collect taxes), we simply need a group of elitist social intellects in judiciary interpreting the Constitution. With this paradigm, we will eventually not need the Constitution, just a bunch of judicial activists running around determine what is socially or politically a right.

There are two fundamental weaknesses that, in tandem, could bring this Republic down. First, the people have learned by electing pandering politicians to vote themselves money from the Treasury. Second, our system of government is supposed to be one of checks and balances. However, a legacy of the Warren Court is that the judiciary has learned that it can make any ruling that it pleases. They disregard the will of the people, their elected representatives, and even that many of their rulings contradict any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution itself. As a result, the judiciary have gone rogue, unconstrained by any checks and balances. The lack of hesitancy with which the California Supreme Court overturned a law enacted by the people and, now, even contemplates overturning a constitutional amendment approved by these same people removes any doubt of this. Inability to cease federal deficit spending AND judicial tyranny are cracks in the foundation of our society. Alone they would be major problems; together, they will inevitably create nightmares, just one of which is detailed as follows. Shoot ahead 15-25 years in the future. Years of deficit spending and a $36 trillion entitlements explosion have created a much more weakened federal government than is the case today. At the same time, a federal judge issues an ruling so contrary to the community values of a certain state or states, that, as one, the state (or states') legislature and governor rise as one and declare a nullification of the verdict of the court on the grounds it is unconstitutional. Both sides marshal legal, paramilitary, and even military resources into a standoff. As a result, the nation as a whole is riven by strife, the prospect of insurrection, and a major constitutional crisis not seen since the Civil War, the outcome of which is anybody's guess. Too overstretched and underresourced due to crushing debt service and numerous overseas distractions, the federal government backs down, and the Union slowly deteriorates into a loose association of states. OR tries to crush the defiant state (or states) --- violent insurrection and, possibly, civil war erupt at considerable economic cost. The resultant loss of American credibility creates a run on the dollar, hyperinflation, and loss of the pretense that America is any longer a major power. Recent events clearly show that we cannot or will not control pur government's spending. Maybe, we, the people, can eliminate the other great threat to the Republic by persuading our leaders to recognize judicial imperialism for the threat to our freedom and security that is --- before it's too late.

Gays have the same rights as normal people. Gays can marry someone of the opposite sex, so can straight people. Gays can't marry someone of the same sex, neither can straight people.

As has been said over, and over again, but so profoundly muffled because of the ultra liberal bias of 95% of the mainstream media, it is those who scream and rant the loudest for tolerance, who are most intolerant. I long for the day that some militant heterosexuals demand that homosexuals ("gay" is a merry and happy mood, not a perverted sexual preference) support their preferences, in business and in the public square. Unfortunately when radically aberrant people force society in directions, and to places, where the majority does not wish to go, ultimately there is an equal backlash that usually winds up going too far in the other direction. So the likelihood is that we shall not have the luxury of giving them "a taste of their own medicine." The fact that our society has allowed itself to become distorted by homosexuals and other deviant, ultra-liberals--deviant in political as well as social ways--almost guaranties that, sooner or later, we will experience a wild swing into the totalitarian realm. Of course, we only have ourselves to thank/blame, as we allowed these fringe elements of humanity to twist our culture into something distasteful and foul to the vast majority.

Okay people lets see about your comments. Jaeger: The judicial system has nothing to do with the bailout money, but perhaps they should use some "rogue judicial activism" to see what the constitutionality of it is. But that would probably upset Jaegar too. Jsyantiss: In a time like this, you want to blame liberals for the countries problems? Really? In that case I blame your elected official. Soxconn: have you ever herd of a democratic republic? Well if you are American you are living in one. It is not a %100 democracy, if that was the case, George Bush would have never been the president for the past 8 years. IE: he lost the popular vote. Remember that? hu?

GING What really upsets a lot of people is this corruption of the judicial system that has and is now creating a tyranny of the minority. An activist judge forcing a heterosexual-oriented dating business to cater to your homosexual inclinations is outrageous. That in and of itself is unconstitutional --- a violation of the right of freedom of association and of property rights. However, given that the gay movement has no concern for these things and only for the furtherance of their agenda, it is safe to say that this does not bother you in the least. Many judicial decisions overturning supposedly "separate but equal" educational systems and laws against interracial marriage were intended to right a wrong. The southern states had managed to gut the 14th Amendment, returning former slaves into a state of virtual slavery. That is not at all analogous to the homosexual activist movement, an entirely different situation about which the 14th Amendment was never intended by its framers to address in the context of their times. However, corrupt activist judges disregard that inconvenient truth. Since that time, the courts have gone far beyond rectifying the 14th Amendment to the extent of raising taxes, running school systems, and bastardizing the federal and state constitutions into legal chaos. Moreover, to compare the gay movement to the civil rights movement is really an insult. Race is an innate trait that has nothing to do with behavior. Your movement on the other hand seeks with coercive measures via the court system to force society to approve a specific behavior, homosexuality, even to the extent of violating religious liberty and the rights of private organizations to determine their own internal rules and organization. In that respect, the gay movement is no different than any other aggressive, self-aggrandizing pressure group.

What has always amazed me in the recent history of the homosexual crusade in the US is the Catholic Church priest cases of sexual contact with boys. These cases of national notice were pretty standard, that is, a gay adult realizing he was molested as a young boy by a Priest. This was construed as a "Church" crime and the Church needed punished. What was not noted was that it was a man committing a sex crime to a young boy. Same sex crime by a homosexual not just a child molester. Another observation is that the child grew up and was gay himself. Makes you wonder about the argument of nature vs nurture. In many cases the Church knew of the problem priest and did not take action to remove him from possible contact. In those cases the Church was wrong and deserved the punishment.

It is apparent that some members of the judiciary are unhappy with the concept of Separate but Equal branches of government. This is a system that, through the Legislative Branch of government, creates the laws which the Administrative Branch then enforces. The Judicial Branch is only supposed to JUDGE the accused and assign punishment if the accused is found to be guilty, in accordance with established laws. The Judicial Branch is NOT supposed to create the law and/or enforce the law, for this is how tyranny beings and thrives. Once the Judicial Branch of the government begins to assume the powers of the Legislature, and it is allowed to do so by the Citizens, then that Judiciary is only a small step from assuming the power of the Administration as well, ENFORCING the laws that they, themselves, created. This is when the tyranny of the Judiciary will gain complete control, when ALL civilian control over the government is removed, and the Judges themselves become the very criminals that are supposed to judge. Can we, as a society, survive this type Judicial tyranny? History would say: No, as tyrannical societies do not last very long. They usually self-destruct, completely and with great loss of live and massive suffering for the survivors.