When bigots becomes kings whose opinions can wipe away the civil rights of
millions of gay citizens, then goodbye to America.
@Mr. BeanIf 99% of your comments aren't posted that means they
are not worth posting.
HA! An 'activist' Senator like Mike Lee is ok?The judge is
to be commended for choosing the right.He did the correct, legal, and
moral thing.God bless him, and all of those who would deny all
humans equal rights should take a hike.
President Putin would love to have all those opposing equal rights to
LGBT's living in Russia. As one often hears living in Utah, if you
don't like it you're free to move.
markSalt Lake City, UT1:11 p.m. Dec. 30, 2013==========
Great comment, the problem is there are some people who SAY
they read, love and defend the U.S. Consitutiton, but spend 24/7 listening
to their AM radios and then trampling it under their feet.
Well Tyler, I asked you if you had any argument indicating Judge Shelby's
ruling was judicial activism. You said this: "does he just
consult a dictionary or his own ideas to make that determination?"You indicated that this is judicial activism. Okay, fine. Do you have any
evidence, whatsoever, that this IS what Shelby did? Yeah, I didn't think
so. (Just consult a dictionary indeed.) Let's look at the
pertinent area of the Constitution. I'll quote it accurately, unlike
another person:No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; . . .
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.This is very clear, even without a dictionary. States cannot
pass laws, or enforce laws, that "abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens". A law must not be in conflict with the US Constitution. And
states may not deny the equal protection of the law to ANY person.A
state issues a license applied for by two people. They cannot deny that license
based on the gender of one of those people. The law is clear.
@Mike in Sandy: "Kudos to the Deseret News for allowing all opinions to be
voiced here."Are you kidding? I posted about many times on this
thread and 99% were denied."Gay marriage hurts nobody..."I think they should be allowed to marry... so they can feel the angst,
vicissitudes, and disappointment when divorce rears it's ugly head. Just
like their counterparts, heterosexual marriages who've decided to break it
off. Right now, if two homosexuals want to break off a relationship all they
need to is... go their separate ways. This may influence decision-making re gay
marriage.@Tyler D:"Again, I am not disagreeing with the
outcome – it is one I share and I think it’s high time gay people
enjoy the same privileges as everyone else."Do your thoughts for
gay people also extend to other people who wish to marry... such as polygamists,
incestuous people, mother/son, father/daughter, siblings, and juveniles?
RE: higvDietrich, ID@freedomfighter and real maverick Arms are
mentioned in the constitution Marriage isn't.I couldn't
agree with you more. Extrapolating from your logic, nobody has the right to get
married. Am I correct? That includes you and your spouse, your kids, your
parents, friends, siblings, etc.
Exactly right Anti Bush-Obama
Sorry...No law passed by the executive branch, the legislative branch nor voter
initiated legislation is exempt from judiciary review. This is what makes our
country so special. So yes. A judge through his rulings can override millions.
This is needed to protect the minorities for being supressed. Dont
worry...there will be many of our finest judicials scholars looking at the this
ruling before it is all over. I hope then you will be at piece that we are not
being ruled by some fictious king.
I laugh when the LGBT people compare themselves to Black people as if they were
some kind of race. My wife finds it highly offensive that something like the
civil rights movement is even comparable to Gay Marriage.
@Tyler:I understand your concern about self-governance. But what is a
judge to do? The case is filed in his courtroom. He hears arguments. Does he
then say "In my heart of hearts, I believe this law is unconstitutional, but
the majority voted for it, so I will uphold it?" We may as well not have
judicial review under that scenario.
@mark – “Actually, Tyler, he is not making social policy. He is
interpreting the law.”And how does he do that exactly? Does he
give any deference to what the intent of the law was or does he just consult a
dictionary or his own ideas to make that determination?If he is not
doing the former then he is creating rather than interpreting the law, and that
is judicial activism – which is an admittedly nebulous term: one’s
man’s activism is another man’s sound judicial ruling (please Google
judicial activism vs. judicial restraint).Again, I am not
disagreeing with the outcome – it is one I share and I think it’s
high time gay people enjoy the same privileges as everyone else. @micawber – “most egregious recent examples of judicial activism
are Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.”I agree and would
also add DC v Heller and Roe v Wade to the list.The point is NOT
whether we like the outcome or not – the point is judicial power and how
that power is used to ultimately take away our rights of democratic (republic)
self-governance. Reached comment limit…
Kudos to the Deseret News for allowing all opinions to be voiced here.The
reality here is that gays are NOT going away.They are human beings.They deserve every single right that ALL people enjoy.Religion and
painful puritanism have no place in the courtroom, or in law.The judge did
the right thing, and no amount of griping, threats, throwing ones hands in the
air,and complaining will change that.Gay marriage hurts
nobody, and all these homophobes are just going to have to accept it.Happy New Year!TJ "Mike" Michaels
Hey Gary...Too bad. Deal with it. It's the way it is, and
the judge is a noble and decent human being, unlike everyone who rails against
him, and shows their bigotry and intolerance by wishing to deny equal rights for
all.This is the real world,
Tyler D:In my opinion, the two most egregious recent examples of
judicial activism are Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. I did not like either
decision. But somebody has to make the final decision. And implicit in that
decision-making authority is the possibility that the majority view might be
Actually, Tyler, he is not making social policy. He is interpreting the law. I
think his finding is very sound. Nevertheless, it will be appealed and another
court will look at his ruling. They will either uphold it, or not. And then the
Supreme Court might look at it. If the Supreme Court ultimately does take the
case and agrees with Judge Shelby, people who do not agree with the ruling can
attempt to amend the US Constitution. All of it is how the sytem works. It is
all within the bounds of the Constitution. Judges do not make
policy, they interpret the law and make rulings based on this. There have been
judicial rulings I disagree with. So what? I respect the law and the
Constitution. And I know that the Constitution establishes as one of the
branches of government the judicial branch. Again, I do not think
you understand the Constitution, nor the judicial process. Can you
make a sound argument that this ruling was "Judicial activism"? I see it
as an obvious interpretation of the law and feel that the Judge could rule no
other way, because of the equal access clause.
"Whatever your views are of inter-racial marriage, whatever your views of
women voting, whatever your views of public school integration ..."You forgot --- whatever your views of polygamy, whatever your views are of
incestuous relations, whatever your views are of father/daughter, mother/son,
siblings marriages."Wait for it ... The 14th amendment."The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with marriage. In fact there is
nothing in the Constitution about marriage.The 14th Amendment is
about state law: '... nor shall any STATE deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the LAWS.' Did you get it? state/laws!
And state law on marriage says that all can marry provided the meet certain
criteria... are of age, sound mind, are one man/one women. There's more but
that should give you an idea of the STATE LAW on marriage. These rules apply
equally to all... so, if gay marriage becomes legal all other limiting rules
will have to be tossed to be fair to all.The Judge erred re State
Constitution 3. Furthermore, the marriage laws are still on the Utah's
books. They have not been removed. Accordingly, the SSM's are all illegal.
@mark – “Tyler, not to be rude, but do you understand how the
Constitution works, and the role of the judiciary?”Of course
Mark…But whether or not his ruling is or is not outside the
bounds of the constitution is a matter of interpretation, and again I think
misses the larger point.The judge is making social policy, pure and
simple – whether we agree with it or even if we feel his interpretation of
the constitution is the correct one, I still find that sort of power
disconcerting. Just imagine a judge making policy you (and the
majority of you fellow statesmen) vehemently disagree with –
wouldn’t you find that the least bit disturbing? Not to get
too hyperbolic, but if judges have this much power what do we even need to have
elected representatives for?Sorry, but I’m just not a fan of
judicial activism whether liberal or conservative. I think it gives far too much
power to far too few individuals in a democratic republic.
Asking conservatives to actually back up their talking points with facts is like
trying to drain the Pacific Ocean with a straw.
Tyler, not to be rude, but do you understand how the Constitution works, and the
role of the judiciary? NOTHING Judge Shelby has done has been
outside the bounds of the Constitution.
procuradorfiscal, can you back up ANY of your claims? Can you provide a source
that would indicate you are correct in ANY of the things you are saying? Badger, same question to you. Can you provide a source to back up your
claim that the Judge is trying to make a name for himself? In fact,
could either of you even pick Judge Shelby out of a crowd?
Despite my sense that you are not referring to me (I’ve never been
mistaken for an “extra-conservative” or even a low-cal
conservative), I felt it necessary to respond since your comment appeared
directly below/after mine.In this case I don’t think the
description (king) is far from accurate. I doubt a judge could have us beheaded
for insulting him, but the ability for one individual to make sweeping law is an
immense power, and I say that in spite of agreeing with the judge’s views
on gay marriage.If a judge has this kind of power to create a right
then it follows they have the same power to take away a right. This particular
issue notwithstanding, I simply find this fact chilling and struggle to
reconcile it with either a democracy or a republic.
Attempting to try and normalize this deviant lifestyle is nothing to celebrate.
I'll wager you, the next group of deviants who will demand that their sick
perversion be given the title of "Marriage" will be pedophiles.When an activist judge can confer the title of marriage on those who engage in
homosexual relations, well, anything is fair game after that. We are watching
our society rot away at break neck speed.Homosexuality, has always
been, and always will be, a detestable perversion. Only a society that has lost
it's moral foundation applauds this attack on traditional marriage between
a man and woman.
This judge just wants to make a name for himself by making an outrageous ruling.
I plan to forget 'what's his name' immediately,
unless of course he is up for confirmation somewhere. I hope the State of Utah
is successful in undoing his 'historic' ruling, thus eliminating him
from enjoying any positive effects of his power grab activism.
Once again, procuradorfiscal, I'd like to see some evidence of forum
shopping in Utah. And, Utah's federal bench is not liberal. Judge
Benson was Chief of Staff for two years for Orrin Hatch.Judge Stewart was
Chief of Staff to Mike Leavitt. His brother is a Republican Congressman.Judge Waddoups was a well-respected civil litigator with prestigious law
firms, first in California, then in Utah.Judge Nuffer was in private
practice and has been a magistrate or a district judge since 1995. He is an
adjunct professor at BYU law school.Judge Shelby was a commercial
litigator before taking the bench. He was also in the Utah Army National Guard
and was on active duty during operation Desert Storm.Each of these
judges tries to apply the law to the facts. In my experience before them, I have
never found them to be agenda driven. So please, unless you have
specific reason to support your accusations, show a little respect.
I believe no one on left has actually read the 14th amendment.If you
had you would know how egregiously wrong the judge is.But then the
progressive left has been all about destroying any real meaning the constitution
has.Without any real meaning there is nothing to stop a tyrannical
I am starting to see the "king" theme from the extra conservative crowd
often enough that to quote "Princess Bride"... " I don't think
that means what you think it means". We have presidents as
kings..... we have judges as kings.... or dictators.... or what ever. Either
way, what ever it is we have, it isn't either of those.
I believe gay people should be able to marry any other consenting adult they
love, period.That said, I regretfully agree with this letter and the
unarticulated dangers for self governance. Judges should not be making our laws
- if we give them this much authority, combined with unelected lifetime
appointments, we are creating a group of mini-kings & queens.
@procuradorfiscalActually there are almost exactly the same number of
Democratic and Republican appointed judges to federal courts. There's also
90 vacancies which is why Republicans were blocking Obama appointments at
unprecedented rates (talk about gaming the system...).
@ Procur: Yes, eventually a Constitutional Amendment was required to give women
the right to vote - but initial efforts involved protests, marches, efforts
state by state, and many women being arrested. You can white-wash
history all you want, but ignoring the facts won't change them. The 14th Amendment specifies nothing about equality only on the basis of race
- it mentions equality and places no restrictions on it. Your
interpretation limiting the 14th Amendment is no more or less activist than an
interpretation that doesn't limit the 14th Amendment. You would
think we, as a society, had progressed enough to recognize the value of all
humans without demanding specifying their humanity in constant Constitutional
Amendments. But if you think the only way homosexuals will get equal
rights is through a Constitutional Amendment, we can do that - but my guess is
the Courts won't buy your limitations and will get there first.
@freedomfighter and real maverick Arms are mentioned in the constitution
procuradorfiscalTooele, UTRe: "[Shelby] is an activist with an
agenda."Hear, hear.The first rule of statutory or constitutional
construction is that judges should give effect to the intent of those
promulgating a law. ... Yes, Judge Shelby and every other jurist who
has handled these issues saw clearly that they had no choice but to agree with
the cases presented to themEvery single case showed only prejudice or
animus toward Gays, created by narrow religious, rather than legal, views, was
behind these bad laws."LGBT activism, on the other hand,
consciously and cynically chose to cheat, rather than follow the
Constitution.It's the difference between upholding the Rule of Law,
and cynically using it as cover for one's personal dodge or hustle."...This seems very personal, as well as contrary to the facts. It's
a pretty far stretch to call someone's desire to live in love with a
partner and have the full benefits of marriage, as a "dodge or
hustle"I personally experience a "hustle" in 2008,
living in California and being deluged with mormon-funded TV ads that twisted
the issue in order to scare parents into voting for hate.
Re: "Typically, judge assignments in our federal court are made by random
computer selection."So, the tactic liberals use to corruptly
beat the computer is to conspiratorially have people file in as many districts
with Democrat-appointed judges as possible. Sooner or later, one will get the
doctrinaire, liberal judge they seek. I've even heard of several plaintiffs
filing in the same jurisdiction -- those not drawing the "right" judge
simply dismiss and join the luckier filer's action.It's
just as corrupt as putting a thumb on the judge-selection scale -- which has
also happened, though I'm unaware of evidence, to date, regarding this
issue in the District of Utah. That's why I mentioned that cheaters shop
for "judges," not this particular judge. Point being --
there are way too many liberal-appointed, reliably corrupt, agenda-driven judges
out there. Liberal LGBT, tree-hugger, homeless, abortion, anti-religion, or
other activists simply induce followers to file in districts with liberal
agenda-driven judges -- like Utah -- and they're mathematically assured of
getting one. Sooner or later.That's how liberal activists
corruptly procure the result they're seeking.
The Supreme Court always understood any right to marry as the right not to have
the government prevent an individual to enter into the existing institution--not
a right to get the government to create a new institution to serve private ends
Shelby is the first federal judge following the DOMA ruling to
conclude that the Constitution requires a state to redefine marriage to include
same-sex couples. He ignored the majority ruling granting states the right to
uphold traditional marriage. May the Supreme Court reinforce this in the
@procuradorfiscal:Is there some evidence that the plaintiffs
"judge shopped" to get their case before Judge Shelby? Typically, judge
assignments in our federal court are made by random computer selection.
I love the high pitched cries of 'lone, activist judge' from
conservatives today…*'Judge's Prop. 8 ruling
upheld' - By Lisa Leff - AP - Published by DSNews - 06/14/11'...ruling that struck down California's same-sex marriage
ban…'*'Judge Ware Denies Motion To Vacate Decision
Overturning Prop 8' - By Barry Deutsch - Family Scholars - 06/14/11*'Gay marriage wins rulings in pair of federal challenges' -
By Denise Lavoie - AP - Published by DSNews - 07/08/10'...ruled
in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the Defense
of Marriage Act, known as DOMA...'*’Prop 8 declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL by 9th circuit court’ – by Michael De Groote
– Deseret News – 02/07/12"Proposition 8 served no
purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of
gays and lesbians in California," the Ninth Circuit said in its ruling on
appeal in the case of Perry v. Brown.' sound familiar?*'Appeals court DENIES stay on same-sex marriage, ruling pending hearing
Monday' - By Emilee Eagar, Deseret News – 12/22/13'SALT LAKE CITY — The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver
Re: "Was the Constitution written for a changing world or only for the world
that existed at the time it was written?"It was certainly
wriiten for a changing world, hence the provisions permitting amendment.What it clearly was NOT written for was to be slickly, corruptly,
disingenuously "re-interpreted" any time an ethically-challenged,
agenda-driven jurist wants to buy votes from one or another political
constituency.And that's true, no matter which provision is
being debated.The female suffrage movement, the temperance and
later, the anti-temperance movements, and the "progressive" income tax
movement, were all models for honestly procuring political change.Agree or disagree, they were honest, and refused to compromise their
integrity.LGBT activism, on the other hand, consciously and
cynically chose to cheat, rather than follow the Constitution.It's the difference between upholding the Rule of Law, and cynically
using it as cover for one's personal dodge or hustle.
"Wipe away the will of millions of citizens" ? Where do you get your
news? If we added the vote totals of the last five elections in Utah we
wouldn't total the millions you mention. I think what you mean were the
less than 100 thousand who backed the amendment nine years ago. I guess though
we should be impressed that you know he can be impeached but less than 10 judges
have ever been and of those only 3 ever removed. Good luck on that!
Interesting. So now repubs claim that some amends merely applied at the time
they were written and don't apply today? Interesting indeed. So
maybe the second amendment, you know, the guns one, isn't applicable today?
Cool!I'll agree that the 14th amendment should be repealed when
repubs admit we can repeal the 2nd.Do we have a deal, repubs?
Why is it that we are a republic one day and a democracy another depending on
the person's opinion of the day?
Another do as I say not as I do letter.
As repubs told me when I demanded greater gun control after Sandy Hook:we aren't a Democracy, but a Republic. We don't base our
decisions on "popularity" or "mob rule."
I remember less than a year ago "the majority" wanted background checks
and tighter gun control. Many radical right wingers proclaimed that we
weren't ruled by "majorities" but by the Constitution.Today, we see these exact same right wingers complaining when the Constitution
overrules what "the majority" wants. Apparently, the
Constitution is only "inspired" when defending guns.
Republic or mob rule?
@ Procur: The world as it exists now is far different from the world that
existed at the time the 14th Amendmdnt was written and ratified and even more
different that the world that existed when the Constituton itself was written.
Do you really believe the Constitution and its Amendments only cover
situations that may have been foreseen at the time they were written? The authors of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for it to cover
interracial marriage? Do you believe Living v. Virginia was decided wrong?
What about Brown v. Board of Education?Telephones, cell phones,
computers, and email are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution and were
obviously not foreseen by our Founding Fathers. Do you believe the Bill of
Rights applies to them or is it perfectly legal for the government to gather any
and all data it wants from them?Some argue that the Second Amendment
only applies to the types of guns available when it was written because modern
weapons could not have been envisioned by the authors. Do you accept that
limitation?Was the Constitution written for a changing world or only
for the world that existed at the time it was written?
Re: "Whatever your views . . . of women voting . . . ."I
know you didn't intent it, but yours' is actually an argument against
Shelby and LGBT activists.The 14th Amendment was intended to foster
racial equality. As it turned out, rather than being a single event, it only
began a process that continued at least through Brown v. Board of Education
[school integration] and Loving v. Virginia [interracial marriage].Women being enabled to vote was a process begun when Wyoming and Utah extended
the vote to women in the late 1800s, and was completed with the passage of the
19th Amendment in 1920.That's the Constitutional model.
It's what LGBT activists SHOULD have done, rather than disingenuously
shopping for "judges" that would corruptly hijack the 14th Amendment and
apply it to purposes its champions never intended.Female suffrage,
NOT racial equality is the appropriate model.LGBT activists and
Shelby simply chose to cynically cheat, rather than follow the Constitution, as
did real Americans such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.That's why we still remember Ms. Anthony and Ms. Stanton. Shelby's
name will be forgotten next week.
@ KJB. Every dictator, tyrant and despot in history was a "person in
authority". Too much authority in the hands of any person can be very
dangerous! Wise up!
When all else fails, conservatives seem to revert to name-calling and innuendos
to divert the government from its job. When millions of people
vote for the opinions of a few private men who claim imaginary knowledge that
exceeds the desires of real living human beings in an election largely
controlled by those men, it is hard for me to think that Judge Robert Selby is
not as honest and worthy as any other man. Freedom is
Constitutional. Freedom is having the ability, time and permission to do the
things that the individual wants to do.
This letter is an example of someone that has no comprehension of how the system
works. States cannot pass unconstitutional laws... even if "millions" of
people vote for them.
Remember that "divinely inspired" Constitution you conservatives are
always rambling about? That very Constitution set up this system. An
independent judiciary is at the core of the system of government the Founders
created.This is not the end of federalism, states rights, or the
will of the people--all of those things will continue to exist within the bounds
of the Constitution as they were always intended to do.
Judge Shelby did exactly what judges are supposed to do. He did address the
facts presented by both the Plaintiffs and the State. The plaintiffs'
points sound like LGBT talking points because they are LGBT talking points and
they are backed up and supported be real world data. The State's points
were discounted by Judge Shelby because the State presented no supporting data
-real world or otherwise. Judge Shelby made a summary judgment
ruling (a ruling without a trial) because that is what he was asked - including
by the State of Utah - to do. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
refused to issue a stay because they don't think the State will win its
appeal of Judge Shelby's decision. Instead of repeating the
unsupportable hyperbole that denies the Constitutional responsibilities of
judges, why don't you focus on helping the State come up with a legally
valid reason prohibiting same-sex marriage? Because so far, no one has been
able to present one.
Gary, Hate to break it to you, but Shelby isn't alone in his
opinion, neither at the official level nor the grass roots.You can
only thank religion for the perversion that blinds any of us to the most obvious
examples of discrimination.
Gary, this might help you understand:"In explaining the
rationale for federal judges to be appointed for life, Hamilton emphasized the
critical role of an independent federal judiciary to take the politically
unpopular action of checking unconstitutional legislative acts. One duty of
those jurists, Hamilton wrote, is "to declare all acts contrary to the
manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all of the reservations
of particular rights or privileges [in the Constitution] would amount to
nothing."Op-ed: Independent federal judiciary is a cornerstone
of ConstitutionBy Robert J. Adler
Sorry, Gary, you're wrong. A popular vote CANOT override Constitutional
protections, regardless the percentage of the vote, and that is exactly what
Amendment 3 tried to do. Judge Shelby's decision was strongly, and
accurately, baaed on the Constitution. And yes, the 14th Amendment protects the
right of people to marry, regardless whether those marriages are opposite-se or
same sex marriages. The state of Utah could not raise any Constitutionally
sound arguments to support its decision. I've read the decision, and it is
good law. Have you read it? If you did, did you really understand
what it says? Somehow, baed on your letter, I think not.
Gary:It aways troubles me when someone doesn't understand how
our form of government works and your letter is an example of this. Under our
form of government, laws made by the Legislative branch, rules made by the
Executive branch, and even referenda passed by a majority of the voters are
*ALL* subject to review by the Judicial branch. And the Judicial branch can only
approve of the actions taken by the other branches of government (and the
actions taken through referenda) if those actions are in conformance with the
Federal and State Constitutions.Laws, rules, and referenda that
attempt to deny groups of persons their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are,
therefore unconstitutional and cannot be approved by the Judiciary. And it
doesn't matter if 100% of the Legislature or 100% of the people voted for
the law or referendum; if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional
and cannot stand.
Thanks for presenting your opinion Justice Russon. I can't figure out why
your opinion isn't considered equal to Justice Shelby's who was
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, including Utah's
two Senators with one of them stating he is "pre-eminently qualified"
and predicting that he would be "an outstanding judge." Why won't
they consider your opinion?
"when a lone judge becomes a king whose opinion can wipe away the will of
millions of citizens, then goodbye to federalism and representative government.
"Possibly true, except that isn't what has happened. Even
our court systems have recourse, a system of checks and balances - through the
appeal process. Whether criminal, civil, or constitutional, the courts provide
a way to fix their errors. People are acting like this was an
arbitrary out of the blue act, that some rogue judge without due process, made a
proclamation changing the course of world events. This is only true if you
haven't been paying attention.You also need to remember that
the predisposition of the courts are to give the benefit of doubt to granting
rights, rather than restricting rights. That holds true in this case as well.
Utah is trying to restrict rights from a class of people, something the courts
for the last 50 years have resisted. If this decision caught you
buy surprise.... you haven't been paying attention.
On facebook and other places people like to quote 14t amendment to defend that
right. When mentioned it does not exist will twist it and call others
Re: "[Shelby] is an activist with an agenda."Hear, hear.The first rule of statutory or constitutional construction is that
judges should give effect to the intent of those promulgating a law. There
exists, not the slightest evidence that anyone involved in promulgating the 14th
Amendment had the any indication or intent that it be twisted into a
disingenuous justification of some liberal political cause-du-jour, like LGBT
"marriage."The second is that lower-court judges
shouldn't presume to substitute theirs' for the reasoning of
higher-court precedent, though personal opinions may differ from those of the
higher court.Shaping and mutilating the Constitution to advance
one's personal political interest is the very height of judicial corruption
-- as Shelby, himself, indicated during his nominating process -- and should
result in removal from the bench.It's just sad when someone of
Mr. Shelby's experience and qualifications chooses, for obvious political
reasons, to violate his oath of office, abandon both personal and judicial
ethics, and repudiate the wisdom and canon that has served Anglo-Saxon law so
well for centuries."Progressives," when presented with an
opportunity for greatness, invariably choose common, callow, liberal hubris,
Really?Judge Shelby did not ask for this case or make a ruling just
to upset folks.People who felt their rights were quashed by
Amendment 3 sued in Federal Court. The Judge looked at the evidence and had no
choice, if he remembered his oath. Married people get well over 1000 Federal
benefit advantages, so it is hard to find a legal reason to deny them marriage.
Moral/religious reasons do not apply in court.Attacking the judge
may be fun, but either he follows the Constitution or he does not.
What is the point of having judges review whether laws are constitutional if you
believe they should be unable to strike down majority views? There'd be no
purpose of any lawsuit ever challenging any law. Your issue is not
that a judge can rule something unconstitutional that has majority support, your
issue is that you disagree with the idea that what was struck down is
Whatever your views are of inter-racial marriage, whatever your views of women
voting, whatever your views of public school integration ... the will of
millions of prejudiced citizens had to be wiped away by a judge or judges
relying on ... Wait for it ... The 14th amendment.
Translation: Someone in a position of authority disagrees with me. Wah wah