Once again, one's view of SCOTUS depends entirely on whether one agrees
with the opinion.At any rate, we're not a democracy, but a
republic. The processes that allowed Prop 8 to occur were the travesty.
The defenders of Prop 8 had no standing because their grievances against
marriage equality were based upon an animus founded in their religious beliefs.
The courts were generous in allowing them to advance as far as they did.
What this article fails to recognize is that the "Democratic Process"
never requires that Fundamental rights be put to a popular vote. In fact, the
Constitution that is the foundation of this great country requires the opposite.
The US Constitution was created in large part to ensure that the rights of the
minority cannot be subjected to the tyranny of the majority. The people that
are decrying that the Supreme Court overruled the "will of the people"
need to take a lesson in civics. If the fundamental rights of Americans were
allowed to be put to a popular vote, America would be a very different country
than it is today...and it is not one that most of us would want to live in.
@2 bits --"I just think the US Supreme Court owed these people a
ruling. that's what the Supreme Court is for. "I agree with
you that their refusal to make a ruling is VERY irritating.OTOH, the
judges really had no choice. They have to follow the constitution and laws
themselves, and they are not legally ALLOWED to judge cases unless BOTH sides in
the case have standing.IMHO, this really should have been stopped
before the SC level. It was the Calif. Supreme Court that screwed up, first by
declaring Prop 8 an "amendment" rather than a "revision" -- and
second by declaring that Prop 8 supporters had standing, even though the
district court believed that they didn't.So if you want to be
mad at someone, I'll help you to be mad at the stupid Calif. Supreme Court.
The bad decisions were theirs.
amazondoc,I didn't say the decisions all agreed. I pointed out the
same thing you did. That there were conflicting rulings. -Upheld by CA
Supreme Court twice (before and after the election). -Injunction by one
District judge. -Injunction upheld by a split Circuit Court panel,
-And the court that's supposed to decide when there are conflicting
judgements, the US Supreme Court... chickened out. That's not
definitive IMO.The US Supreme Court should have decided the matter
once-and-for-all instead of just saying on a technicality we'll let the
District judge's injunction stand (which in affect let one judge's
opinion overrule the clear voice of the people).If you don't
think the majority of CA really wanted the amendment... look at the map and the
vote totals (Wikipedia).I just think the US Supreme Court owed these
people a ruling. that's what the Supreme Court is for. I'm not
saying I'm right or judge walker was right. I'm just saying the
Supreme Court should do their job and made a ruling on this issue once and for
all, instead of chickening out.
While the recent Supreme Court decision did not directly affect Utah, Utah will
soon be on the horizon as a hot spot for further litigation. A law suit has
already been filed by same-sex couples who want to see the Utah Constitution
(Amendment 3) declared unconstitutional, as it relates to defining marriage as
between a man and a woman. The difference is -- Utah will defend the law. And,
if this case goes all the way to the Supreme Court, a decision will likely be
made as to the consitutionality of defining marriage as between a man and a
woman. Hopefully, the Supreme Court would decide in favor of states rights, and
leave the matter alone. But, it is also possible that the Utah law could be
struck down by the Federal Courts.
@4word --"Seems like a whole new activist position to
me."Nope.As the justices pointed out, they have
NEVER allowed private citizens without standing to do what the Prop 8 supporters
were trying to do. NEVER."Persons do not have standing to sue to
enforce a constitutional provision when all they can show or claim is that they
have an interest or have suffered an injury that is shared by all members of the
public."-- "Standing to Challenge Lawfulness of Governmental
Action" at Justicia.comAs for either the state or Federal
governments declining to defend the law, that is also not new.For
details, look up "The Indefensible Duty to Defend" at Columbia Law
Review; "Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional
Statutes" (written in 1994 by the then-assistant US Attorney General);
"When May a President Refuse to Defend a Statute?" at Northwestern
University Law Review; and "Executivie Discretion to Decline to Defend
Federal Law Against Constitutional Challenge" by the Palm Center for Sound
Public Policy.These principles are very well established, folks.
There's nothing brand new about either of them.
What the ruling on prop 8 really says is:The people do not have the
right to appeal unjust decisions of lower federal courts to the SC, because they
are not the government. Strange ruling in a country where the
Constitution starts out "We the people". So really the SC
court just ruled that the people aren't the government, completely contrary
to the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.Seems like a whole new
activist position to me.
@procuradorfiscal -- "that's EXACTLY what happened."@2 bits
-- "You make it sound like every court sided with you."1.
2008 -- Calif Supreme Court **invalidated** Prop 8 when it was called Prop 22
(as a statute rather than a Constitutional amendment), with the very same
wording.2. "2009 -- UPHELD by the California Supreme Court."-- it was mostly "upheld" only in a procedural sense -- it was
declared an "amendment" rather than a "revision", so they
decided that the vote on it was legitimate and sufficient. They COULDN'T
really vote on its constitutionality in a broad sense -- It had **become** the
constitution for that state, so it was by definition constitutional in the
state.3. 2010 -- The district court said "unconstitutional"4. 2012 -- The circuit court said "unconstitutional, and by the way we
think you're sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong (no
standing)." The Calif Supreme Court insisted they did have standing, even
though the circuit court was dubious.5. 2013 -- The SCOTUS trial said
"you're definitely sticking your nose in where it doesn't
belong."That's actually FIVE levels of review -- and it was
only upheld in ONE of them, and for essentially technical reasons at that.
Marriage needs to be in the form of man/woman to make it clearly linked to child
rearing. It is the outward form and not the individual circumstances of the
couples involved that matter.Debates about the public policy of what
marriage means should be carried out in the legislative and referendum forums
where public policy is formulated. The courts should not short circuit the
formulation of public policy on what marriage is. That is what is before us, a
fundamental disagreement about the basic meaning of marriage.Those
who think it is about "equality" have assumed a certain set of meaning
to marriage. It is a set of meanings that ignores commitment, or creating a form
that is focused on raising children.
The Court went for the technicality of "standing" in the Prop 8
decision, instead of the crux of the case, which is can a federal court overturn
a state constitutional amendment? I think Scalia's dissent was the more
accurate and proper direction. The decision makes the point that the laws come
from the citizens, and then they refuse to back it up. If courts can undo a
constitutional amendment voted on in citizen's referendum, then the power
is in the courts and not the people.This makes two years in a row
that our Chief Justice has tried to be a political Solomon. And he has failed
in both decisions. He is supposed to defend the Constitutions, both federal and
state, and not try to bow to public opinion. He needs to read the protocols on
interpreting the Constitution set forth in "Commentaries on the
Constitution." What a disappointment he has turned out to be.
Re: "Just a reminder -- Judge Walker is an openly gay person living with
another gay person who he has admitted he'd like to marry."No conflict of interest there, huh?"So if the judge had
been an openly straight man living with a straight woman who he had admitted
he'd like to marry, that wouldn't have been a conflict of interest?
After all, he could have been suspected of being prejudiced in favor of
Re: "The Deseret News and most Republicans didn't complain one bit when
George W Bush was selected and named POTUS by the same Supreme Court . . .
."Are liberals still flogging that dead horse? That's
truly amazing!By EVERY actual study that's been done, George
Bush won. EVERY single one.The Supreme Court merely slowed things
down and required the election to come out the way it was supposed to, all
along.Liberals are only miffed because the Court stepped in to
prevent the cynical miscarriage of the electoral process liberals had tried so
hard to pull off.
Re: "It's not "justice" when the vote of the people is
overturned by a single local judge (who may have a political agenda) . . .
Fortunately, this is not actually what happened."Actually,
that's EXACTLY what happened.If you read the opinion, the
Supremes held that there was standing only at District-Court level. So the
deranged 9th Circus opinion doesn't count. The Supreme Court ruling
can't honestly be characterized as either win or loss, since it didn't
even consider the merits of the issue.So that leaves Judge Vaughn
Walker's opinion as the law of the case.Just a reminder --
Judge Walker is an openly gay person living with another gay person who he has
admitted he'd like to marry.No conflict of interest there,
huh?Thus -- the will of millions of Californians was overturned by a
single unelected, lower-court judge, with a clear conflict of interest, who was
clearly following a political agenda other than justice.The rule of
law is dead in America.
amazondoc,You make it sound like every court sided with you. That's
disingenuous to say the least.Prop8's constitutionality was
challenged in court before it went on the ballot... and Prop8 was declared
"Constitutional" and went on the ballot (Nov 2008).After
they won the election... the proposition was challenged and was UPHELD by the
California Supreme Court. Google "Strauss v Horton"... the California
Supreme Court UPHELD Proposition 8.District Court judge Vaughn
Walker (ONE person with an agenda) issued an injunction pending appeal on August
4, 2010 "Perry v Schwarzenegger".Perry V Brown:9th
Circuit Court of Appeals said Prop8 proponents didn't have standing to
appeal, and State officials refused to appeal. California Supreme Court ruled
they DID have standing. The 9th Circuit panel affirmed the District court in a
2-1 split decision. So ONE District Court Judge (Judge Walker).
And a one-vote-majority at the Circuit Court, overruled all the people of
California. The US Supreme Court didn't decide one way or the
other. They wouldn't even hear the case ruling prop8 proponents
didn't even have standing.
@patriot – “Barack has NOT compromised on a single thing in 5
years.”You need to put down the kool aid.Here’s a short list of legislation pushed by the president that either
had wide spread support or whose core ideas were taken directly from
republicans, or both:ACA – not popular I admit, but the
individual mandate was a republican answer to the free rider problem and the ACA
was to the right of what Nixon proposed.Cap & Trade – a
conservative think-tank invention meant as a market friendly alternative to
reducing greenhouse gases (back when conservatives believed in science).Stimulus Bill – huge tax cuts and infrastructure spendingWall Street reform – hugely popularDebt - $2 or even $3 of
cuts for every $1 of taxReally we could go on and on regarding the
number of times Obama has reached across the aisle and said essentially,
“I like your idea… let’s see if we can get it done” only
to have republicans time and again say “no” unless they got 100% of
what they wanted.
Interesting...The Deseret News and most Republicans didn't
complain one bit when George W Bush was selected and named POTUS by the same
Supreme Court when HE didn't win the majority vote in a Democratic
process?All I can say is -- Hypocrites.
re:ClaudioYes I am suggesting exactly that Claudio and one only need
follow legislation over the past 25 years to understand. Barack has NOT
compromised on a single thing in 5 years. Not one. Heck - there isn't even
a discussion and if you speak with congressional leaders they will tell you that
this president has no idea how to compromise... he acts and reacts solely on
leftist ideology. Instead of setting down with congressional leaders of both
parties to solve issues where does Barack go - always- predictably? Yes he hits
the campaign trail and speaks to HIS adoring crowds using props when needed.
This is NOT governing. This is campaigning. Bill Clinton passed loads of
legislation during his second term with a dominate GOP congress. How? He
compromised. He was a former governor and he understood how to get things done
as did Ronald Reagan. Look at our energy production in America - it is dead in
the water. No Keystone pipeline and no active development on public land and all
due to a president who will NOT compromise. Barack is willing to talk if you
agree 100% with his point of view.... and that is NOT governing.
@Say No to BONo, The court isn't trying to have it both ways. DOMA
was a federal regulation, they struck it down, saying that it's the states
right to choose who can get married. They didn't strike down prop 8, they
decided not to rule on the case, making the lower courts decision binding. How
on earth is that imposition by the federal government?
@2 bits --"IMO It's not "justice" when the vote of
the people is overturned by a single local judge (who may have a political
agenda) and the supreme court won't hear the case. It lets one man wipe out
the popular vote. "Fortunately, this is not actually what
happened.In reality, Prop 8 was struck down BOTH in the trials court
(one judge) AND in the appeals court (three judges). Then it made it to the
Supreme Court (nine judges).In other words, the supporters of Prop 8
actually lost their case THREE SEPARATE TIMES in the judicial system.I'd say that's a pretty darned thorough review.
LunchBoy @ 7:13,Where in the article did it say that the Des News would do
away with the Judicial Branch completely?I HATE when people put
words in your mouth that you never said. How about we stick with
what the writer actually said... Instead of reading your own thoughts into what
they said and then pretending they actually said it?
The democratic process DID take a hit. But you have to remember that the
judicial branch is there to overrule legislatures and even the voters when they
try to do something unconstitutional. Basically to protect the minority from
tyranny of the majority.You may not like every decision they make,
but it's comforting to know they are there if YOU are in the minority...
They stand between the majority walking all over your Constitutional Rights.That said... I have to admit that there were extraordinary shenanigans
going on with the California decision. It was NOT declared
"Unconstitutional"... but the popular vote was overturned. (NOT
supposed to work that way). It should be declared "Unconstitutional" by
the US Supreme court (not a local judge) to overrule election results.IMO It's not "justice" when the vote of the people is overturned
by a single local judge (who may have a political agenda) and the supreme court
won't hear the case. It lets one man wipe out the popular vote. The
Supreme Court should have made a decision.
Hypocrisy abounds? I wonder if the Desnews editorial board would feel the same
way if some state had a citizens initiative to... oh say not allow Church's
to knock on the doors of complete strangers, or a State initiative to make an
official State religion. It's the will of the people right? If a simple
majority, as in the case of Prop 8, show up to the polls and vote on something,
even something absurd, then it's the will of the people and should be
observed and adhered to right? Oh but I bet if a court overturned those
citizens initiatives as unconstitutional, because they would be, you'd be
thrilled with that decision right? Yea. We don't live in a pure
democracy, we live in a Democratic Republic and we have checks and balances so
that a majority of people don't get to (always) run roughshod over the
minority. You can't have it both ways. Members of the LDS church are
protected from discrimination in places where they are not the majority right?
But apperently you think those protections could be taken away by a simple
majority of the people? Really?
@J Thompson"The court ruled that California has no right to amend its
own constitution. Where did the court receive authority to rule about a
state's constitution?"No, it ruled that California has no
right to amend its own constitution in a manner that violates the federal
This editorial is basically saying that in a democracy, the majority should be
able to get what they want. Ironically, the Constitution was designed to
protect the minority from the majority (or mob rule). Let's look at a
hypothetical. What if a simple majority of people in California voted to
abolish Mormonism from California, including all missionary work and enshrined
it as an amendment to the California Constitution. Let us then say that the
Supreme Court rejected this amendment on the grounds of legal standing because
the State of California refused to enforce it, so an atheist group decided to
try to get the courts to enforce the law. Would the writer of this editorial
decry this ruling as the "democratic process taking it on the chin?" I
think not. But this is a what happened with the Prop 8 ruling. If you read the
majority opinion written by Justice Roberts, he said that in the history of the
Supreme Court, it has never granted legal standing to a non-state entity. Doing
so would open the doors to all kinds of groups seeking the courts to become the
enforcement branch of government.
The supreme court's ruling will not diminish the importance of traditional
marriage for heterosexual couples. Two homosexuals marrying will not affect my
marriage. So why all the fuss? This ruling just legitimized the gay sexual
lifestyle. Homosexuality is now "normal". The normalization of
homosexuality will only hasten the moral decay of our society.
I am amused by the phrase, "biologically intact families." Does the DN
then believe the special protections to those families should not extend to
families with adopted or step-children? Also, I find it disingenuous that the
LDS Church refers to marriage as between one man and one woman, when men can be
sealed to more than one woman (if widowed or divorced) and that polygamy will
exist in the next life.
The court ruled that California has no right to amend its own constitution.
Where did the court receive authority to rule about a state's constitution?
Article 3, Section 2 enumerates the authority of the Supreme Court. Nothing in
that section gives the Court authority to rule on the constitution of a
State.When unauthorized acts are permitted, our freedom is lost.
The Supreme Court told us that those who favored the amendment to
California's Constitution had no "standing", yet the Court assumed
that it had "standing" in an area that is not enumerated in the
authority given to it by the people.
What about the will of the majority and the democratic process when states voted
to segregate school, promote "separate but equal" laws, ban mixed-race
marriage, or any of the thousands of other small-minded laws, approved by a
majority, that singled out and marginalized a minority by blocking their access
to basic rights and services? The majority doesn't get to pick when what is
chosen violates our core legal foundation,This editorial is
egregiously one-sided and indefensible, certainly is designed to parrot the
press release issued by the LDS Newsroom yesterday, and is certainly not worthy
of this newspaper.
The Constitution does not give us the right to vote on whether or not other
people are allowed their full human rights.
Many very good comments here. I especially like this reminder from LunchBoy:
"Every law that the Supreme court has ever overturned was enacted by a
majority in a national or state legislature." I also liked the posts saying
that if Prop. 8 were proposed today it would lose and that the elected officials
in California who chose not to defend Prop. 8 were elected by majority vote.
It's almost as though the Deseret News would insist that the
Southern States should be allowed by majority vote to continue to discriminate.
You argue the will of the people was ignored. Have you ever heard of
"tyranny of the majority?" The judicial branch was set up to protect
minority rights from infringement by the majority. If not extended to the states
through the 14th Amendment, segregation and bans on interracial marriage still
might exist in some Southern states.
So if the people of California passed a constitutional amendment requiring that
redheads pay double the tax of everybody else, the courts should let that stand,
too, because it was the will of the majority?And by the way, we
don't live in a theocracy. Even Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this
world."Can't you live your religion unless its doctrine is
the law of the land?
The court is trying to have it both ways. States rights and federal imposition.
Pick your decision; both are confusing.The GBLT will continue to push.
The court told the people of California that they have no right to vote to
change their state constitution. The court said that those who defended
California's right to choose its own destiny had no "standing";
but, the court allowed those who opposed Prop 8 to have "standing".Is that "equality"? How can they speak of "equality" and
the 14th Amendment when they deny one side to even have "standing"?The court is "full of itself". It thinks that it has the right
to rule that the federal government controls the States and that moral people
cannot insert into their state constitution that marriage will not be changed to
suit the desires of those who do not respect marriage.The Court does
not respect history. They have not walked among the ruins of
"civilizations" who rejected eternal truth, civilizations who chose to
indulge their appetites and passions.It will become clear that those
who reject eternal laws will be rejected by Him who gave us those laws to keep
us from destroying ourselves. Foolish people do foolish things. This Court has
acted foolishly and set aside the Constitution that was meant to protect us.
@jchowell Your comment would make sense had the SC struck down Prop
8… they did not. They simply ruled that the petitioners had no standing,
and based on historic precedent (read Justice Robert’s opinion) it was the
correct ruling.Had the State chose to defend the amendment, the
correct ruling in my view would have been to uphold it (i.e., put it back on the
State to change their own laws if they see fit). So it sounds like your issue is
more with the elected officials of CA (who chose not to defend the law in Court)
than it is with the SC.
I find it ironic that the Progressive Movement was started in order to lessen
the influence of elite interests and increase the influence of ordinary
citizens. Citizen initiatives such as Proposition 8 were one of the vehicles of
the Progressive Movement. Today, those calling themselves
"progressives" disdain and vilify citizen initiatives that do not go
their way, and rely on the least small "d" democratic branch of
government, the courts, to get their way.
Show of hands – how many think the DN would publish an article claiming
“democracy took it on the chin” had the SC overturned the ACA
earlier this year? At least support for the ACA can actually be found in the
Constitution under either the Commerce Clause or Congress’ tax authority.
Where does the Constitution ever mention marriage or the right of the Federal
government to regulate it?This article is dripping with
We don't live in a Democracy.We live in a Compound
Constitutional Republic.Sorry, but majority doesn't rule!
Marriage between a man and a woman is codified in state law, sometimes through
the legislature and some times through an election. A federal judge says that
those laws violate a citizens rights under the US constitution. The supreme
court says federal law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman
is unconstitutional, and it's well established law that state laws
don't trump the federal constitution. I understand all of the nuances of
both decisions, however 30,000 foot level, where do you think this leaves states
Wow, You guys are brave. I'll be sure to read more articles by my favorite
columnist, Mr. Deseret News Editorial, I mean, that guy thinks judicial review
is anti democracy. But yesterday he thought it was perfectly OK to strike parts
of the Voting Rights Act. This is some intellectual discord. You can disagree
with the decision, but if you want to disagree with the process you'd
better have a better idea to put on the table. Not a sour grapes article like
this one because the court didn't make the decision you wanted.
DN Judicial review is part of the "democratic process". Just because
you don't agree with the decision does not mean that the democratic process
has been compromised.
The United States used to be a republic. What happened? (That was a rhetorical
question for those who are just a tad slow.)
They can't change the meaning of the word. A mirage is a bolt and nut of
the same size and thread bound together.
Remember -- The LDS Church only represents 0.9% of the U.S.
population....I'll remember this article if the other 99.1% try
to take away our rights.Who gets what "rights" is not by
decided on by popular vote.We should have learned than from 1838
The voters of California passed Prop. 8. Then they elected a governor and an
attorney general who would not defend it. In which instance were the voters
wrong? Also as a side note, polls today indicate that prop. 8 would
lose by a large margin if put before the voters.
A lot of good comments here. Unconstitutional measures should not be allowed
just because a majority support them.
I imagine the day will come (probably soon) when a conservative judge will do
the same thing to a popular vote supported by liberal, left-wing voters. Then
the liberals will cry "fowl". Why oh why can't we see how freedom
and liberty has taken a major step back today: there is too much power in the
hands of a few judges.
First, I disagree with the court's decision. I view this as a dramatic
expansion of rights, not the defense of existing rights. Yes, the court has
effectively legislated and "found" rights that have never previously
been found in the constitutional landscape.That said, this is not
unprecedented for the court. Also, the court's role is, in part, to
overturn laws (even popular ones with lots of support) it deems as being
unconstitutional so we can't get too worked up over the democratically
passed laws vs. court decisions issue.I believe this is a sad day
for our nation and will lead to marginalization of any religious group that will
not fully embrace homosexuality as good before God. But it is not all that out
of character for the court.
The Prop 8 campaign was despicable--especially the commercials, and the "Six
Consequences" missive.There is much I could write today, but I
won't. I'm just happy for my gay brothers and sisters. No one should have to lie, hide or pretend they are someone they're not.
I strongly believe in the family unit as important in providing economically,
emotionally and physically stable environments for children. Today
was a step forward.
The purpose of courts is to determine validity of law, prop 8 was rejected as
violating the federal constitution at two court levels and then rejected by the
Supreme Court for not having someone with standing because apparently nobody is
harmed by same-sex marriage. It's an extremely concering position for the
editorial writer to argue that unconstitutional measures should be allowed
because a majority supported it.
We can play with the word "rights" all we want. If any special interests
group can change the vocabulary of a populace, they can control how they
think.As for the Supreme Court's ruling on Proposition 8, I
agree that they followed the protocol that governs their judicial power;
however, the fact that individuals have willfully broken their oath of office by
refusing to uphold the laws enacted by the people they represent is despicable.
So much for checks and balances that should require them to at least attempt to
abide by the oath that they have made.
Just, WOW. So am I to understand that the DesNews would do away with the
Judicial branch entirely as a check on the Legislative? Every law that the
Supreme court has ever overturned was enacted by a majority in a national or
state legislature. Good grief, DesNews, try harder.
Whenever SCOTUS issues a decision News bosses like, they say the court was
reasoned and rational. But, when they disagree, the decision is flawed and
tramples America's interests. Coincidence?
I see now. When the Supreme Court throws out popular laws in certain
states restricting the proselyting activities of Mormon Missionaries that's
being a strict constructionists. If they use the same Constitution to throw out
laws you happen to agree with then that's legislating from the bench. Thanks for clearing that up.
Patriot,Are you suggesting that conservatives don't engage in
the same tactics of non-compromise?
The LDS Church lost big on this. It was very unwise to jump into the political
arena in California. This paper has to spin it.
There have always been protections in the Constitution for minorities against
mob rule, i.e. you can't vote on people's rights, even if they are a
Wasn't it just yesterday you published an editorial agreeing with the
court's evisceration of the voting rights act. That act was also passed by
large majorities in congress and signed by the president. In other words it was
passed by the legitimate democratic process. I'm calling you out on your
"judicial activism" claim. You seem to think that it's only
judicial activism when you don't like the result.
Spot on, Deseret News.
Actually, the only things that "took it on the chin" were bigotry and
prejudice and discrimination. Under the US Contitution, people cannot vote or
legislate the rights of others. Good job, Supreme Court.
I think Barack pretty much summed up what the term 'democratic
process' has been redefined to mean in his ridiculous global warming speech
two days ago. Basically his speech said that he was wide open to any discussion
on global warming so long as you AGREED with his views on global warming. In
other words there is no open discussion or respect for other view points
anymore... not as far as the liberal radical lefties are concerned. It is their
view or else!! Gay marriage is the same. Gays are wide open to discussion so
long as you agree with them...down to every detail. The will of the majority
means nothing anymore especially when Barack and his Chicago thugs are more than
willing to buy votes and corrupt the process anyway. If they lose they just get
an activist unelected judge to overrule the vote and voice of the people. Pretty
simple. Liberty is dead in America.