Published: Sunday, Dec. 29 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Translation: Someone in a position of authority disagrees with me. Wah wah
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.
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
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.
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,
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
"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.
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?
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.
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, 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@ 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!
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.
@ 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?
Republic or mob rule?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments