The judicial branch is overstepping it’s bounds. The consitution provides for remedies to this problem. The legislative and executive branches have not acted on these remedies. Getting rightfully angry at judges making law, rather than interpreting, and not being held accountable, is a reasonable response.
Not only that but what legitimacy is there to constructing a “right” out of thin air?
How am I contradictory? I gave you a stock definition of why marriage is a basic human right. You don’t like that definition of marriage as the means to produce the most natural and basic unit of human society? Let’s hear your definition.
Yes.
How about Loving vs Virginia or Brown vs Board of Ed.? The courts overruled what the voters accepted as the legislated law in their states.
Nope. Liberal judges go looking for what another judge said to justify their opinion, even if it means searching other countries far and wide. Justice Kennedy said so. He said he looked to Somalia (of all places) for one of his decisions. Liberal judges do not care about the constitution because it is antiquated. So they read into it (give it lip service) so that our country can be “saved” by getting into modernity with the rest of Europe. The judge in this case had a pre-conceived notion that homosexuals are an undermined group that is discriminated against and made his decision based on that notion. He has no constitutional basis for this decision to stomp out a law.
I don’t care who he was appointed by.
We also have a natural human right to eat. We do not have a natural human right to steal someone else’s food and eat it and say “what’s the matter? I have a natural right to eat.”
What can I say? I disagree with what you say, but I respect your opinion.
Yes. That is the debate. The judge here and in Minnesota, and undoubtedly elsewhere are not only making their own laws, they are changing the definition of institutions and words that have been historically stagnant. They have no right to do this.
It is an improper application of constitutional review. This is why such review needs to be limited by congress, in particularly in the case of re-defining long-stanidng institutions.
Not quite. Eating is not a natural right, but a natural instinct. A right is a power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.
Judicial review is fine when it has a constitutional basis but not when the constitutional basis is invented. Also, judicial authority has to be recognized as coming from God. This misunderstanding of the source of judicial authority leads the justices to themselves play god and invent reasons outside of orginal intent and/or the will of the people.
To what would you limit review? No law should be above scrutiny for constitutionality, and both conservative and liberal courts agree with that.
The United States is not a theocracy. That dog won’t hunt.
I agree. It is not always cut and dry. But God’s law is. That is why he gave it to us. It makes things a whole lot easier.
I agree. It is not always cut and dry. But God’s law is. That is why he gave it to us. It makes things a whole lot easier.
There are some things that, by virtue of their destructiveness, warrant judicial review. In Loving v. Virginia, there is no reason based on biology, reason or natural law that would prevent a man and woman of different races from fulfilling the vows of marriage.