Our Black-Robed Masters (thank you, Mark) at the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court have taken away the remaining wiggle room from politicians wanting to avoid the gay-marriage question. Civil unions, say the Justices, do not meet Our requirements: you, the legislature, must pass laws letting homosexual couples marry as We command.
The weaselly state Senate president, Robert Travaglini, wanted to obstruct a vote February 11 on a proposed state constitutional amendment to protect marriage from the Goodridge decision, but his excuse -- the lack of clarity on whether civil unions would satisfy the judges -- has just evaporated.
And the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee called the federal Defense of Marriage act (which he voted against), "Gay Bashing". Kerry is a liar when he says he's not for Gay Marriage. He just wants the court to legislate it so he doesn't alienate voters who don't support radical redefinition of marriage. If the Bush people can't find a way to use this against Kerry, then they're fools.
One thinks of Thomas Jefferson's recommendations about how to deal with tyrants.
Sic Semper Tyrannis?
Eric,
You aren't suggesting that we kill tyrannical justices, are you? I know an Anonymous poster (not me) got kicked off of Shea's blog for just that six months back or so. Not something to be fooled around with, if you ask me.
I'm not saying that we're to that point -- but Jefferson thought at the very least, tyrants should be deposed. If they are trying to carry out their rule by force of arms -- as the judges are not, at least not directly -- then they should be met with force.
The Second Amendment is the ultimate check and balance against the government. I am not suggesting that anyone take up arms, but I do say that it is available as a last resort. (The idea of armed resistance to tyrrany is straight out of St. Thomas, incidently.)
The power of impeachment, expressly provided for in cases of usurpation of authority, is available to the Massachusetts legislators. It's a more appropriate response even than the proposed amendment of the Massachusetts constitution.
And there are ways for the President to make this point, advancing both the legal and the political position, when, inevitably, he's asked his reaction to the situation in the Bay State.
Grace and peace.
Francis,
First of all, the decision in Mass. is not unpopular, so they aren't gonna fire the judges over it. Secondly, I'm willing to bet that most, if not all, of the legislators looking at this matter sing the praises of many another judicial usurpation, e.g., Roe V. Wade. So they could not impeach a judge for something they usually approve of.
Someone ring the bell next to Lexington Green.
Perhaps the Commonwealth legislature can send the sargeant at arms to arrest these judges for perjuring their oath of office.
Do people really believe this talk of "tyranny" and "black robed masters," or do most of the people patronizing blog comment boxes have naturally incline toward excessive hyperbole? Or are people just aggrieved with democratic government?
OK, you think the decision was wrong. But the Massachusetts legislators can start the process of amending the constitution of Massachusetts (and could have started it back in 2001). If Massachusetts voters don't think their legislators are making adequate progress in doing so, they can vote for new ones. If this doesn't happen, then perhaps the people of Massachusetts are OK with the decision.
Bill,
Just because judges' ruling can be overturned through various difficult and cumbersome constitutional processes doesn't mean that they aren't dictators. It only means that they can only legislate things that the vast majority of people won't object to. Imagine if a president could pass any law he wanted, but could be stopped with two thirds of both houses. Would you call that a real representative democracy. I wouldn't.
By "vast majority won't object to" I mean that they can only effective legislate things that don't have the spirited opposition of, say, 60-70% or more, not things that the vast majority supports/doesn't care about. They trump a simple majority every time.
Actually, the scenario I gave above with the President having the ability to pass laws without congress with the caveat of congress being able to block said laws with a supermajority would be a lot more democratic than the current judiciary situation. To reverse a bad SCOTUS precedent, you need two thirds of both houses plus ratification of 3/4 of the states. Enormously difficult to accomplish. Not to mention the fact that you could still vote out the President, but the people have neither the right to vote in Justices nor vote them out of office once they're in there. So no, I don't think "black-robed masters" is hyperbole at all.
Coward, I do appreciate your zeal, but please try to combine your multiple posts into a single one.
Mr. Logan, I assure you I mean exactly what I say, and I do not think it hyperbole to say that when a judge ceases to rule on points of law and begins to be a law-giver, he has overstepped his authority. The judiciary is the least democratic institution, necessarily so: it is not supposed to bow to the whims of the mob, but to be insulated enough to give themselves some critical distance.
When judges abuse their position, they should be deposed. Again, I am not suggesting that they should be killed. I am saying that first we should nullify their judgments, and then they should be removed from office as an example to others.
I think the same thing should happen with errant bishops and theologians, but that's another post.
Coward, I do appreciate your zeal, but please try to combine your multiple posts into a single one.
I will try to do so in the future.
Secession is always an option. The circumstances are similar to the last time Virginia (and others, of course) seceeded: some other state government, in some form, is trying to dictate what another state should do, in this case invoking the Full Faith & Credit clause of the U.S. constitution to force recognition of a "lifestyle" on the rest of the country). Indeed, this time, the states that are not Massachusetts not only have principle on their side, they also have the knowledge that the morality of the underlying (or catalyzing) issue is most certainly in their favor.
Bryan,
If the feds decided to go to war to protect the union (and you can be sure they would), there is nothing that the seceding states could do to stop them. Military tech has just advanced too far.
Retribution dosen't matter. It's the principle of the thing. Just as it was 150 years ago.
Maybe we could make certain states secede? Tops on my list:
1. California
2. Vermont
3. Massachusetts
4. California (because it's a big state.)
Don't forget New Jersey, with its clone-'n'-kill legislation.
In response to my queries about whether or not some people are merely engaging in hyperbole, Eric wrote when a judge ceases to rule on points of law and begins to be a law-giver, he has overstepped his authority. I suspect that this is a fairly-widely held sentiment; my problem with it is that it is just so wrong. Judges have always made law. The common law is nothing more than judge-made law. How exactly would you differentiate "ruling on points of law" and "being a law-giver"? Is there any substantive difference other than that the former are actions you approve of and the latter are actions you don't?
As for the talk of tyranny, give me a break. If this is tyranny, what does that make Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il? Are tyrants just people you disagree with, or is there any real meaning to the term? Sure, it may be hard at times to change the law, and it may be difficult to remove people from office before their terms expire, but so what? It's very difficult to amend the Constitution of the United States--does that mean the Constitutional system of government is inherently tyrannical?
Lest I seem too bilious, let me end by saying this: Some people (on various blogs) have complained about the difficulty and length of time it takes to amend the Massachusetts constitution and the difficulty of removing Massachusetts state judges, and that it should be easier to do so. I note that it is comparatively easy to do so in California. As a native Californian, it always pleases me the more people wish to model their own states after my home state.
Bill, see my response in the main blog.
RE: The People's Republic of Mass. High Court
There is another option besides public violence. The Gov., Rep. and Sen. of a perticular state act in a passive aggressive manner. Refuse to act on the ruling, refuse additional funding, refuse pay increases, cut back funds, eliminate funding for office workers, reduce funding for utilities, refuse staffing for security, refuse to fund any expendature to enact their ruling. Make every dime of funding a spending bill blood bath. This can work on the Federal level as well. The courts have zero power not acted upon by the other two branchs of government.