Setting the record straight.
With the new attempt to create a new Constitutional amendment "protecting" marriage, there's much more talk of judges extending beyond their roles, being activists, and "legislating" new laws.
Judges can't legislate anything. What they do is decide cases using the state's and/or federal constitution and existing laws. If a gay couple sues the state after being denied a marriage license, and the judges decide they should have been given the license, they haven't created a new law. A court's decision regarding the legality of gay marriage depends mostly on whether they have a strict, literal interpretation of the state constitution (or a loose, more "liberal" interpretation). Judges can't get together one day and say to each other "You know, we think gay marriage should be legal. Let's legislate that." They have to have a case, and they have to play within the bounds of the constitution. Judges interpret laws as they are written now. If we disagree with them, the onus is on us to change the laws.
Please take those fingers that are currently pointing at "activist" judges and turn them back to face yourselves. Part of our responsibility to this country is appointing leaders who will write laws that reflect the will of the majority, protect the rights of this country's citizens, and that are written in such a way that don't leave room for questions about intent and interpretation. Blaming others makes us feel important and educated, but that's all it does. Don't like the way this country is going? Get up, get out, get others behind you, and vote.
Judges can't legislate anything. What they do is decide cases using the state's and/or federal constitution and existing laws. If a gay couple sues the state after being denied a marriage license, and the judges decide they should have been given the license, they haven't created a new law. A court's decision regarding the legality of gay marriage depends mostly on whether they have a strict, literal interpretation of the state constitution (or a loose, more "liberal" interpretation). Judges can't get together one day and say to each other "You know, we think gay marriage should be legal. Let's legislate that." They have to have a case, and they have to play within the bounds of the constitution. Judges interpret laws as they are written now. If we disagree with them, the onus is on us to change the laws.
Please take those fingers that are currently pointing at "activist" judges and turn them back to face yourselves. Part of our responsibility to this country is appointing leaders who will write laws that reflect the will of the majority, protect the rights of this country's citizens, and that are written in such a way that don't leave room for questions about intent and interpretation. Blaming others makes us feel important and educated, but that's all it does. Don't like the way this country is going? Get up, get out, get others behind you, and vote.
posted by megan at
11:14 AM
2 Comments:
A-friggin-MEN. Well ranted. ;-)
By
RebeccaP, at 7:57 AM
I would beg to differ about the effect that the judicial role has on our laws. Certain jurisdicitions are much more liberal or conservative than others, and they often decide a case based on a "stretch" or "narrow interpretation" of the law. Where a case is tried is often a very important consideration.
The Supreme Court certainly gets together to discuss and shape laws. A good book describing the inner actions of the Supreme Court, and hence, the Judicial system is Closed Chambers by Edward Lazarus, a former clerk for Judge Harry Blackmum. Another popular one on the subject is The Breathern, by Bob Woodward.
I believe that many activists (whether they be liberal or conservative, or cause based) try to get changes through the courts because they know that it is very difficult to get a Consititutional amendment.
Why haven't we had new amendments to the Constitution for such social topics as abortion, death penalty, gay rights or marriage, etc? I believe that the answer is that no one feels confident enough to successfully get their cause approved, so they go to the next course of action - the Judicial system.
By
Jay, at 11:01 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home