I agree that Judge Shelby's actions are impeachable offenses and would
whole-heartedly approve of attempts to remove him from his bench. To disregard
standard processes and bypass the time requirement to give both sides a chance
to present is a form of Treason itself. I'm sure all judges have ideas of
what the law "should" read in a perfect world, but the requirements to
acknowledge the law in its current state is to respect the legislative process,
which is the heart of the democratic portion of our republican gov't. This
judge is legislating from the bench, and therefore is a threat to our
constitution. I say impeach is we can do it through outlined processes in law.
The irresponsible editorials of this paper do lead to letters like this. Calling
the opinion "tyranny" was a mistake. Do you advocate sending the army
out to confiscate the certificates when the legislature meets and goes crazy on
this issue soon?
"The law is still on the books"That is an interesting
comment. That Utah's marriage laws are still on the books seems correct.
Which means that same-sex marriages should be unlawful. And it means marriage
licenses issued to same sex applicants by county clerks are of no value... and
it means that those SSM are not in effect.The only thing that Judge
Shelby did was say that Amendment 3 to Utah's Constitution cannot go into
effect. But that does not mean Utah's marriage laws are null and void.
Making a decision we might disagree with isn't "impeachable." Time
to get a grip.
"You mean like those judges on the Supreme Court who declared that
corporations are people?"Corporations are designated as
'people' in order to create a business entity that can have
wide-spread ownership, (such as JC Penneys, sears, Chrysler, etc.), can have
protection of owners from being sued, and can sue and be sued sue without the
entire ownership's approval. These are just a few reasons for the
designation. There are many others.The fact that corporations are
designated as 'people' does not mean they eat lunch, marry, play golf,
etc. It's not rocket science.
"Judge Shelby has not committed any impeachable offense."Neither did Clinton... but he got impeached by the House, nonetheless. The
only thing they had on him was something about a blue dress.It's expected that one man cannot override the vote of the majority...
else we have a dictatorship. Oooops, I think we have one now, with... Obama."We work on a system of laws based on books of law..."We do, indeed... and the law on Utah's books says that marriage must be
between one man and one woman. The issue in this case is about including the
requirement in the State Constitution. The law is still on the books"Judge Shelby is doing noble work here."He's doing it
like a dictator would. Not a good idea for the good of the people of the state
of Utah and the nation."If the State thinks Judge Shelby
misapplied the law, its remedy is to appeal his decision."True,
but in serious cases such as nullifying a long standing state law, he should
have stayed the judgement until it reached the highest court. As it is,
there's alotta marriages that might be in jeopardy.
"I like the way progresives wrap themselves in the constitution and the rule
of law when it suites them."Yes, handy isn't it. Seems the
constitution is one size fits all. Either side can wear it easily. Whats ever
better is the "bill of rights" snuggy. Just hunker down on your couch
and with its handy little arm holes, you can hit the remote when things are
presented that don't match beliefs.
Why would one impeach a Judge supported by Orrin Hatch?
Judicial activism in judges, unfortunately, is a way of life. Although, I
believe it was a decision based on personal politics, he nevertheless did make
his decision. Unfortunately, this country currently is greatly divided and in a
culture war. The judicial process needs to play itself out.Funny how intensely
partisans either love or hate the court depending on whether or not they ruling
is to their personal liking.
Mona: Impeachment gave the career and reputation of Bill Clinton a second life.
People felt him so put upon by detractors, that he is now the best loved living
ex President. Maybe it would even make him the next Supreme Court nominee of
Threatening judges with impeachment unless they rule "our" way is a
You should be thanking the judge for delivering a dose of reality into your
sheltered, unrealistic life.
Re: There You Go AgainConservative activist judges are ok.Other activist judges are not ok."An activist judge is one
that makes a decision you don't like."-Supreme Court Justice Anthony
Kennedy. I couldn't agree more. "It is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."-Chief
Justice John Marshall, 1803.
"Activist judge?"You mean like those judges on the Supreme
Court who declared that corporations are people?
@ Sal - No, the Judge could not have allowed civil unions as that truly would
have been legislating from the bench because he would have been creating a law
that did not exist prior to his ruling. Additionally, Amendment 3 prohibits
civil unions. The way Utah write the law was all or nothing - and nothing is
exactly what they got.
Speaking frankly, if conservatives are now so desperate that they've
resorted to impeachment of judges in order to stop SSM, then this war will be
more easily won than I thought.
@Sal:Judge Shelby was not presented with civil unions as an option. The
only question before him was whether Amendment 3 passed Constitutional muster.
If he had said "I'm striking down Amendment 3 and replacing it with
civil unions" that would be activism and legislating from the bench.
Legislatures pass laws; courts interpret them and if necessary test their
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 on….
Where were all these repubs when "mob rule" was rejected on guns? It's funny how the right flip flops even within a year!Just a year ago we were a country ruled by law, not popular opinion.Now, it appears that the law doesn't matter but whatever popular opinion
is.Which is it repubs?
We don't like Bill Clinton, let's impeach him!We don't like
Obamacare, let's shut-down the Government!We don't like Judge
Shelby's ruling, let's impeach him!Something about the
far-right-wing, WE are the true patriots, who love the Constitution, and
defend it, rah-rah-rah! and we they don't
have enough votes, or things aren't going their way, impeach them all, shut-it all down, as we will Trample the
Constitution -- [shaking my head]...it's just is not
Mona - the public doesn't vote on "impeachment" of a federal judge,
the U.S. House of Representatives votes and the Senate convicts. Which will
not happen, nor should it. You are suggesting "mob rule", which is
precisely what the Constitution prevents. You can not "impeach" a judge
because you disagree with the outcome.
Does the right need more cheese with its whine today?
@Sal --"Hopefully, the Supreme Court will uphold its own ruling
that states have the right to define marriage."States do not
have an UNRESTRICTED right to define marriage. All state laws must conform to
the US Constitution.If states could define marriage however they
wished, then we would still have bans on interracial marriages. This is
precisely what Loving v. Virginia was all about.
Tolerance is not an attribute of the Left. The Judge could have ruled in favor
of civil unions for gays leaving the state of Utah with its right to define
traditional marriage. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will uphold its own ruling
that states have the right to define marriage.
"He based his decision on pre-trial proceedings without allowing the
democratic process to play out."I'm sorry, but it was the STATE
OF UTAH, not the plaintiffs that asked the Judge for a summary judgment without
trial. He simply followed their wishes. They just didn't like the ruling.
Good letter, Mona. Judge Shelby ruled on the thinnest of proceedings not on the
majority rulings of the Supreme Court.
"BTW -- Impeaching someone just to send a message to other Judges is an
abuse of power.It's called Extortion."Absolutely
correct. In addition it's whaaaa, whaaaaa, we lost again.
Judges are NOT supposed to edict the "will of the people".which is
precisely why Judges are Selected for Life terms...So they
don't have to look over their shoulders, make back room deals,
campaign, go to fund raisers, hand out candy, kiss babies and tell
people exactly what they want to hear.That is what ELECTED officials
do.Judges rule by LAW, not popular opinion.BTW --
Impeaching someone just to send a message to other Judges is an abuse of
power.It's called Extortion.
The judge was called upon to make a summary decision, and he did. In light of
the law of the land, the outcome was all but pre determined. In the end, the
will of the people was strengthened, as now each of us has a choice in the
matter. Individual rights are a wonderful thing. Happy new year.
MonaExactly what has Judge Shelby done that warrants impeachment.
The states have the right to regulate marriage but those laws must ultimately
conform to the US Constitution. The Utah amendment violated the Equal
Protection Clause and Judge Shelby had to strike down the law. You are the one
that is advocating that Judge Shelby become an "activist" judge.
Calm down, Mona.Equal protection and due process are part of the US
Constitution. Guess what, YOU never ever had the right to vote on Amendment 3
to begin with. The rights of others are NOT yours to vote away.
"...Even if Shelby were acquitted, impeachment proceedings would be a
warning to other activist judges...".Conservative activist
judges are ok.Other activist judges are not ok.
It is not the courts' job to uphold the precise will of the majority of the
people. That's what elections are for. The job of the courts is to uphold
the Constitution, regardless of whether the necessary decisions fall in line
with the will of the majority. It is up to the judges to determine, without bias
from the rest of the population, what constitutes equality under the law, or
equal protection. It seems more than obvious to me that to exclude Gays from the
institution of marriage is a clear violation of any notion of
"equality," and I have yet to see anyone dispute that on a rational
level. Therefore, it is not "activism" on the part of judges to declare
that Gay and Straight couples should be treated equally under the law, rather it
is an example of judges performing their rightful duty.
"Activist" judge. That's funny. If the Governor didn't say
that, nobody else would have.Your guys Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch
supported Shelby's appointment to the bench.And I'll bet you
would follow those two into battle.Why are you so against equal
rights? Or are you only for equal rights according to your OWN narrow beliefs?
This is reality Mona. This is the real world.We work on a system of laws
based on books of law, not other books.Judge Shelby is doing noble work
here.Happy New Year.
"He based his decision on pre-trial proceedings without allowing the
democratic process to play out"What part of the "democratic
process" are you expecting the judge to have honored? I think I must have
missed part of the story. The purpose of the courts is to ensure that
majorities don't deny minorities rights. It has failed horribly at times
in the past of doing.... and has succeeded in other instances. But the exact
goal of the courts is to prevent "democracy processes" from denying any
group their rights.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that "[t]he President,
Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed
from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors.' Judge Shelby has not committed any
impeachable offense. He was called upon to make a decision, and he made it. That
is not a high crime or misdemeanor.If the State thinks Judge Shelby
misapplied the law, its remedy is to appeal his decision. It has done so.
Let's see how the Supreme Court rules on the stay issue and how the Tenth
Circuit rules on the appeal.I think the Deseret News, with its
overly critical pieces about Judge Shelby, bears some responsibility for this
kind of letter.
The Senate would never vote to convict and the House would look like a bunch of
sore losers on something that the American people are increasingly in favor of.
If you're angry at a lack of stay, that's been denied by judges on
several levels at this point. His decision was done at the speed both sides