Good News; Prop-8 Dies
As expected, a District Court in California ruled today that Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages in the state of California, was not constitutional.
I think The Blade should tell us:
What can we add to that? Hurray!
Brick by brick we are seeing the wall of anti-gay bigotry dismantled.
The celebration is happening at the Bravo Bravo Restaurant & Nightclub in DC, near Farragut North on the Metro.
I think The Blade should tell us:
In an historic development, a federal judge in California ruled Wednesday that the Golden State’s ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco said an amendment to the state’s constitution banning same-sex marriage, which voters approved in a 2008 ballot measure known as Proposition 8, violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection and due process clauses.
“Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement,” Walker wrote in his ruling.
The order also prohibits “the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.” But that order was stayed for an indeterminate length of time, pending an expected appeal of the case.
Voter approval of Prop 8 put an end to same-sex marriages that began in California in early 2008, when the state’s highest court ruled that gays and lesbians could not be denied the right to marry under the state constitution. Judge Overturns Prop 8 In Historic Ruling
What can we add to that? Hurray!
Brick by brick we are seeing the wall of anti-gay bigotry dismantled.
The celebration is happening at the Bravo Bravo Restaurant & Nightclub in DC, near Farragut North on the Metro.
posted by JimK at 8:18 PM
27 Comments:
hey, all you lawyers
will this ruling only apply to California or is it applicable to any states that have pro-marriage state constitutions?
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
Matthew 5:29
the LA Times and SF Chronicle are reporting that Judge Walker, one person, who overruled the votes of 7 million Californians, is gay
"“It’s not just marriage that was put on trial,” said Daniel Blomerg, attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, “but the fundamental freedom of having your vote count and having the liberty to express and live by your religious beliefs. It’s pretty shocking.”
Anticipating an unfavorable ruling, the Proposition 8 legal defense team filed Tuesday night a motion with Judge Walker, which said, “A stay is essential to averting the harms that would flow from another purported window of same-sex marriage in California.”
In his decision, Walker wrote:
“Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples."
Ron Prentice, volunteer chairman of ProtectMarriage.com, said in a statement:
“Today’s ruling is clearly a disappointment. The judge’s invalidation of the votes of over seven million Californians violates binding legal precedent and short-circuits the democratic process. But, this is not the end of our fight to uphold the will of the people for traditional marriage, as we now begin an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“It is disturbing that the trial court, in order to strike down Prop 8, has literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent when casting their votes for Prop 8.
“But the reality is that Prop 8 was simply about restoring and strengthening the traditional definition of marriage as the unique relationship of a man and a woman, for the benefit of children, families and society.
“At trial we built a solid record to show that marriage has served as the foundation of the family and society as a whole, has universal functions and features attributable only to unions between a man and woman, has been defined in both law and language as a union between a man and a woman, and acts as the predominate relationship in which to create and support children.
“We are confident that the trial court record we built will help us ultimately prevail on appeal and reverse today’s ruling.
“Reversing today’s decision will also serve as a reminder that the role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law only as enacted by the people and their elected representatives, not to impose new social policies.
“And federal precedent is clear that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. To prevail in the end, our opponents have a very difficult task of convincing the U.S. Supreme Court to abandon precedent and invent a new constitutional right.”
“What’s really chilling about this decision,” said Blomberg, “is the way the plaintiffs and the judge directly attacked the faith of millions of Americans. They presented doctrinal beliefs about marriage as evidence of bigotry, as unreasonableness.
“They have gone to great lengths to underscore the religious beliefs of the people who campaigned for Prop 8,” said Prentice. “It is hardly remarkable that religious beliefs and religious people are involved in the political process. It is part of our Constitutional tradition, from the American Revolution to the abolitionist and civil rights movements.”
"Prop-8 Dies"
legalities can only be killed by a higher power, the Supreme Court
I'm sure Judge Walker told all his pals at the local gay bar that he has this power but there is the Court of Appeals and, then, the Roberts-led Supreme Court to clear, where Prop 8 has 5 votes in the bag
"Anonymous"
Despicable comments, as usual. But then, what's new?
btw...cite some Biblical injunctions about religious hypocracy and "Mote in eye" references.
actually, as part of our series, requested by a anonymous pro-TTFer and Robert, on the words of Christ, a post on religious hypocrisy (watch for spelling) was made on August 2 at 10:40 pm
here's the other verses I think you're referring to, Matthew 7:3-6:
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."
interesting last two lines, when considering context
I know it's earlier than usual but that will have to count for today's verse
Cast not your "do not throw your pearls to pigs" before TTF.
This translation sounds like it was watered down for second graders.
the translation was NIV
if anyone likes, they can go to the Bible Gateway site and compare the same verses in a couple dozen different translations
"Sharron Angle told a religious broadcaster that the Obama administration is violating the First Commandment by expanding federal programs and making "government our God."
"We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government," Angle said in an interview with TruNews Christian Radio. "We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not our government."
Reid campaign spokesman Kelly Steele charged that Angle's comments show the Southern Baptist believes her campaign "represents a holy crusade -- a religious 'war of ideology' in her words -- against government programs like Social Security and Medicare."
"Sharron Angle's unyielding antipathy toward all government programs is based not simply on political and ideological beliefs -- it's based on what she believes to be a religious crusade against government," Steele said after her remarks spread on the Internet and among bloggers.
Jarrod Agen, an Angle campaign spokesman, said she was suggesting that Reid, President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "have become these all powerful figures that are not accountable" to the public as they expand government and deepen the nation's debt and deficit.
"In some ways that's like a God complex," Agen said. "They're passing programs like the health care law against the will of a majority of Americans. The point that she was making was these all are powerful figures that are not accountable and they need to be stopped."
The former Reno assemblywoman has done dozens of interviews with conservative TV and radio broadcasters, including one recently where she described her campaign as a "calling" from God.
Angle's comments about the First Commandment came as she touted ideas to shrink government by closing some federal agencies and overturning or halting Democratic spending programs that hadn't turned around the crashing economy.
"These programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God," Angle said. "And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment."
The First Commandment warns "thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Angle spokesman Agen said Reid is hypocritical for criticizing her for speaking about God and politics since he has said that he can't separate his religious and political beliefs.
"It's not unusual for candidates to discuss religion," Agen said. "It's hypocritical for him to attack Angle for discussing her religious beliefs and politics when he has done the same thing."
Reid, who like Angle is devout, is a prominent member of the Mormon church.
In an October 2007 speech at Brigham Young University in Utah, Reid talked to an audience of believers about why it's possible for a Democrat to share their conservative religion.
"My faith and political beliefs are deeply intertwined," Reid said. "I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it."
Reid went further in the speech and explained why people sometimes have to rely on government and not only God to help them, especially those facing tragedy or misfortune.
"As we learned in the man-made tragedy of September 11, 2001, during a crisis people have only three places to look for help: family, government and God," Reid said. "I say government can be our friend.""
Anon's objection that the decision disregards the religious beliefs of those who oppose same sex marriage shows an utter lack of understanding regarding the separation of church and state, guaranteed in the First Amendment. Even the Alliance Defense Fund understood, in seeking to make its presentation in court, that theological arguments have no place in an Equal Protection Clause case. That is why they tried to show, but could not show, that there were secular reasons for denying same sex couples the rights that opposite sex couples have.
I suggest anyone interested in this issue, regardless of what you think your view is, should actually read the decision, which may be found at
http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/district-court-decision/attachment/35374462-prop-8-ruling-final/
What Mr. Olson and Mr. Boies demonstrated, and what Judge Walker recognized in a clear and tightly-written decision, is that the arguments used to explain why the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not protect gay people's right to marry the person of their choice have absolutely no basis in fact. Olson and Boies challenged the Alliance Defense Fund to make its case, and the ADF came up with absolutely nothing.
The virtue of the court case was that the ADF could not simply say that allowing same sex couples to marry would undermine heterosexual marriage, and leave it at that. To use a legal/Latin term, ipse dixit arguments (it is so because I say its so) carry no weight in a court of law. The ADF had to show how same sex marriage would undermine heterosexual marriage. And it could not even remotely do so. Absent such a showing, it is plainly unconstitutional to discrminate against gay couples with respect to the right to marry.
The trial and Judge Walker's decision demonstrate that the Emperor of Anti-Same Sex Marriage simply has no clothes.
It will be interesting to see how the Roberts Wing of the Supreme Court deals with Judge Walker's analysis. Justice Kennedy wrote Lawrence v. Texas with great emotion. I suspect he will view this case favorably, as well.
I think you're right that Kennedy will be the key
I think you're missing a key point though
Walker gave himself the right to marry his boyfriend by saying that gays are being deprived of a fundamental right without due process
there is still a large legal question, quite about from factual concerns, about whether there exists a fundamental right to marry a person of your own gender
I don't think there does and neither do the majority of Americans and neither do at least four Supreme Court justices
Anon,
I do not think you have read the whole decision. The final legal conclusions begin at p. 123, where Judge Walker concludes that "Proposition 8 cannot withstand any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clasue, as excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest." Judge Walker then goes on to demonstrate how each of the purported justifications has no factual merit.
So the issue is not, legally speaking, whether there is, in your words, a "fundamental right to marry someone of your own gender." Rather, the legal issue is whether, having granted the right to marry to straight couples, the state can consitutionally deny the same right to gay couples. The point of traditional Equal Protection Clause jurisprudence is that if the state wishes to engage in discrimination, it must be able to show a strong rational reason for so doing. Here, the proponents of Prop 8 were not able to present any supportable, rational reason. Saying, "well, I don't like the idea of same-sex marriage" is not sufficient under any traditional jurisprudence.
It will be quite interesting to see how Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito -- all of whom presumably oppose same-sex marriage on personal and/or theological grounds -- will be able to find a flaw in Judge Walker's analysis.
well, you're right
it will be interesting
any chance any of us will still be around when it finally gets there?
If President Obama already has to celebrate a "lonely guy" 49th birthday with his family away, a CNN/Opinion Research poll has one more way for him to remember the day: 27 percent of all Americans still think that he was probably or definitely born in another country.
Eleven percent "definitely" think so while 16 percent regard it as probable, according to the poll conducted July 16-21.
Forty-one percent of Republicans believe he was probably or definitely born outside the country.
Twenty-nine percent of independents join those believing he was probably or definitely born elsewhere.
The theory that Obama was not born in the U.S. has been advocated by the so-called "birther" movement since the 2008 campaign. Obama's supposed birth state of Hawaii got so tired of requests for official records on Obama that it passed a law, signed by the state's Republican governor, allowing agencies to ignore further inquiries.
Popular talk show host Rush Limbaugh said on his Tuesday broadcast, "They tell us August 4th is the birthday. We haven't seen any proof of that!"
the last couple of days have shown why the country is turning on the Democratic party:
despite the name of the party, they don't believe in democracy
on Tuesday, over 70% of voters in Missouri rejected Obamacare
the reaction of Democrats: so what?
then, yesterday, a gay judge overturned the vote of 7 million Californians
the reaction of Democrats: so what?
slowly but surely, Democrats are trying to get Americans used to the fact that their vote doesn't count
they thought we'd become fatalistic and shrug off our loss of self-determination
they're in for a surpise
we're having a tea party in November!!
Back in January, President Barack Obama told us all (including the future starving generations of poor kids whose food stamps are being sacrificed so teachers today can get paid by federal bailouts), that:
"Everybody in the country is going to have to sacrifice something, accept change for the greater good. Everybody is going to have to give. Everybody is going to have to have some skin in the game."
And back when Obama was trying to get the Olympics to Chicago, he was flanked by Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama, who talked about that trip as a sacrifice:
"As much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the President to come for these few days, so many of you in this room have been working for years to bring this bid home."
Lady O's latest sacrifice?
The First Lady is spending the next few days in a five-star hotel on the chic Costa del Sol in southern Spain with 40 of her "closest friends." The group is expected to occupy 60 to 70 rooms, more than a third of the lodgings at the 160-room resort. Not exactly what one would call cutting back in troubled times.
Reports are calling the lodgings of Obama's Spanish fiesta, the Hotel Villa Padierna in Marbella, "luxurious," "posh" and "a millionaires' playground." Estimated room rate per night? Up to a staggering $2,500. Method of transportation? Air Force Two.
To be clear, what the Obamas do with their money is one thing; what they do with ours is another. Transporting and housing the estimated 70 Secret Service agents who will flank the material girl will cost the taxpayers a pretty penny.
The Obamas better get in as much luxury travel as they can before we cut them off.
Isn't it about time we freed marriage from the state?
Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman -- or no one at all -- and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives.
I believe your private relationships are none of my business. And without any government role in the institution, it wouldn't be the business of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, either.
As the debate stands now, we have two activist groups trying to force their own ethical construction of marriage on the rest of us. And to enforce it, they have been using the power of the state -- one via majority rule and the other using the judiciary.
If marriage were freed from the state, folks at The New York Times editorial board could avoid making outrageous claims like "marriage is a constitutional right."
Even new Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan recently wrote that "there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage."
If marriage were a private concern, U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker would not have ruled that California's Proposition 8 violated the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process, because Proposition 8 would not have existed.
Walker never would have to sit in judgment of Americans and claim that "moral disapproval alone" was behind this plot to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Moral disapproval alone?
As best as I can tell, support for gay marriage is tepid. A recent CBS poll shows that 42 percent of Americans support marriage rights for gays and lesbians, though no state has been able to pass a referendum to legalize same-sex marriage.
Does that mean that approximately half of voters -- and all 7 million Californians who voted for Prop 8 -- have no logical or legal reason for believing that marriage should be between a man and a woman other than bigotry?
Is President Barack Obama, who David Axelrod says opposes same-sex marriage, a homophobe?
In my world, the answer is: Who cares? Is there any other personal relationship that is defined by government?
Yet we have decided that a majority on the Supreme Court or, perhaps, a majority of the voters in your state or, even worse, a majority of the legislators in your state have the power to define what is often the most intimate bond of your life.
In our Utopian vision, no group is empowered to dictate what marriage should mean to another. And one of the great perks would be the end of this debate.
SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 6) -- The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban this week is a member of a powerful all-male club that had only recently allowed blacks to join.
But after Chief U.S. Judge Vaughn Walker struck down the voter-approved ban known as Proposition 8, he became something else in the minds of some: a gay activist.
Rumors have circulated for months that Walker is gay, fueled by the blogosphere and a San Francisco Chronicle column that stated his sexual orientation was an "open secret" in legal and gay activism circles.
Walker himself hasn't addressed the speculation, and he did not respond to a request for comment by The Associated Press on Thursday.
But that hasn't stopped a public debate that exploded in the wake of the 66-year-old jurist's ruling invalidating the votes of seven million Californians.
"Here we have an openly gay federal judge, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who, I promise you, would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution," said Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of The National Organization for Marriage.
"The evidence shows that, by every available metric, opposite-sex couples are not better than their same-sex counterparts; instead, as partners, parents and citizens, opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are equal," Walker wrote in his exacting, 136-page opinion.
Gerard Bradley, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, published a column in the hours before Walker filed his opinion faulting the media for not forcing Walker to address his sexual orientation.
And Byran Fischer, issues director for the American Family Association, urged the group's members to contact their congressional representatives about launching impeachment proceedings because Walker had not recused himself from a case in which "his own personal sexual proclivities utterly compromised his ability to make an impartial ruling."
Months before Walker struck down Proposition 8 as an unconstitutional violation of gay Americans' civil rights, members of the team defending the ban in court had complained about what they perceived as judicial bias.
Over their vigorous objections, Walker pushed to have the proceedings televised live, a plan the U.S. Supreme Court quashed at the last minute. Then, he refused to excuse as a witness a Proposition 8 supporter who had compared gays to child molesters during the 2008 campaign. Lawyers for the two same-sex couples who sued to invalidate the ban had called him as a witness to try to prove the measure was fueled by anti-gay prejudice.
Walker has ruled in at least two other cases involving gay rights issues during his two decades as a judge. In 1999, he rejected arguments from the parents of a San Leandro boy who claimed their religious rights were violated by pro-gay comments their son's teacher had made in the classroom.
In the other case, he dismissed a free speech claim by two Oakland city employees whose managers had confiscated a bulletin board flier for a religious group that promoted "natural family, marriage and family values." The city had "significant interests in restricting discriminatory speech about homosexuals," Walker wrote in his 2005 ruling.
Until this week, though, Walker biggest moment was when he ruled that the Gay Olympics become the Gay Games.
Civil rights groups opposed Walker's nomination because of his membership in the Olympic Club, an all-male athletic club that had only recently admitted its first black members. California's senior senator at the time, Democrat Alan Cranston, used the club issue to question Walker's fitness for the bench.
Anon,
Interesting point about taking the government out of the business of marriage. But since the government IS in the business of marriage, it is unconstitutional to discrminate based on theological concerns or on propositions not supported by fact. That is what the trial showed.
That is why Kagan could easily say, there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Because there is no constitutional right to marriage, at all. But if the government decides to have civil marriage, it may not invidiously discriminate.
So do you agree that Judge Walker's decision is constitutionally sound?
Nevertheless, in your utopian world, the issues still would be argued. For example, what to do about Social Security benefits. Would all people designated as spouses get survivior benefits, or would only spouses approved by the Congress?
As to Maggie Gallagher's argument that Judge Walker should have recused himself if he is gay, that is an odd argument. Should the three female Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from any future attack on Roe v. Wade because they are women? (Ms. Gallagher probably would like that.) More to the point, if Judge Walker were straight and married, couldn't he, according to Ms. Gallagher's logic, be accused of being biased in favor the arguments in favor of Prop 8? By her logic, the only fair judge would be someone who is asexual.
Which brings to mind Woody Allen's line in one of his early movies: "There are three kinds of people -- heterosexuals, homosexuals, and those who don't care about sex (they are the lawyers." I saw that movie with a bunch of law school friends while we were studying for the bar exam. Lots of nervous laughter in the theatre.
Finally, as to concerns 20 years ago that Judge Walker had belonged to a club that only recently had stopped discriminating based on race, the sad fact is that the stratum of people from whom George the First picked judges routinely had such associations. But what relevance does it have to the correctness of his decision here? (The article you posted without a link (is it an AP article?) is confusing. The first paragraph says that the Olympic Club only recently admitted blacks; the last paragraph indicates that the Club began to admit blacks shortly before Judge Walker was nominated (which would have been sometime between 1989 and 1992.)
Anon,
Interesting point about taking the government out of the business of marriage. But since the government IS in the business of marriage, it is unconstitutional to discrminate based on theological concerns or on propositions not supported by fact. That is what the trial showed.
That is why Kagan could easily say, there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Because there is no constitutional right to marriage, at all. But if the government decides to have civil marriage, it may not invidiously discriminate.
So do you agree that Judge Walker's decision is constitutionally sound?
Nevertheless, in your utopian world, the issues still would be argued. For example, what to do about Social Security benefits. Would all people designated as spouses get survivior benefits, or would only spouses approved by the Congress?
As to Maggie Gallagher's argument that Judge Walker should have recused himself if he is gay, that is an odd argument. Should the three female Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from any future attack on Roe v. Wade because they are women? (Ms. Gallagher probably would like that.) More to the point, if Judge Walker were straight and married, couldn't he, according to Ms. Gallagher's logic, be accused of being biased in favor the arguments in favor of Prop 8? By her logic, the only fair judge would be someone who is asexual.
Which brings to mind Woody Allen's line in one of his early movies: "There are three kinds of people -- heterosexuals, homosexuals, and those who don't care about sex (they are the lawyers." I saw that movie with a bunch of law school friends while we were studying for the bar exam. Lots of nervous laughter in the theatre.
Finally, as to concerns 20 years ago that Judge Walker had belonged to a club that only recently had stopped discriminating based on race, the sad fact is that the stratum of people from whom George the First picked judges routinely had such associations. But what relevance does it have to the correctness of his decision here? (The article you posted without a link (is it an AP article?) is confusing. The first paragraph says that the Olympic Club only recently admitted blacks; the last paragraph indicates that the Club began to admit blacks shortly before Judge Walker was nominated (which would have been sometime between 1989 and 1992.)
apparently, Corporations now have to apologize if they don't support the gay agenda:
ST. PAUL, Minn. (Aug. 6) -- The head of Target Corp. apologized Thursday over a political donation to a business group backing a conservative Republican for Minnesota governor, which angered some employees.
Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel wrote employees to say the discount retailer was "genuinely sorry" over the way a $150,000 contribution to MN Forward donation played out.
MN Forward is running TV ads supporting Republican Tom Emmer, an outspoken conservative opposed to same-sex marriage and other gay-rights initiatives that have come before Minnesota's Legislature.
Any institution should be sensitive to the concerns of its stakeholders, whether they are customers or employees.
Would you have been outraged if, in the 1960s, African American employees of a big company objected to political contributions to arch segregationists? Or if, the in the 1930s, Jewish employees of IBM (if there were any) objected to IBM's connections with the Nazi government in Germany? Would you have been outraged if those companies then changed course? I suspect not.
Now, of course, this can be a slippery slope. Any business may have stakeholders with widely divergent views. In such situations, it might be wisest for that business to simply not weigh in at all. Or if it chooses to weigh in, to engage the discussion as to why it has so acted with its stakeholders.
opposition to the normalization of certain behaviors and desires doesn't equate to racism and anti-semitism, regardless of how convenient that would be for the gay agenda
more on liberal Democrats' disregard of the consent of the governed:
"Last week, a draft memo surfaced from the Department of Homeland Security suggesting ways to administratively circumvent existing law to allow illegal immigrants to avoid deportation. Most disturbing was the stated rationale. This was being proposed "in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform." In other words, because Congress refuses to do what these bureaucrats would like to see done, they will legislate it themselves.
Regardless of your feelings on the immigration issue, this is not how a constitutional democracy should operate. Administrators administer the law, they don't change it. That's the legislators' job.
A 2007 Supreme Court ruling gave the EPA the authority to regulate carbon emissions if it could demonstrate that they threaten human health. The Obama EPA made precisely that finding, thereby granting itself a huge expansion of power and sending "a message to Congress."
It was not a terribly subtle message: Enact cap-and-trade legislation -- taxing and heavily regulating carbon-based energy -- or the EPA will do so unilaterally.
And what to do when the executive is passively aggressive rather than actively so? Take border security. Sen. Jon Kyl reports that President Obama told him about pressure from his political left and its concern that if the border is secured, Republicans will have no incentive to support comprehensive reform (i.e., amnesty). Indeed, Homeland Security's abandonment of the "virtual fence" on the southern border, combined with its lack of interest in completing the real fence that today covers only one-third of the border, gives the distinct impression that serious border enforcement is not a high administration priority absent some Republican quid pro quo on comprehensive reform.
But border enforcement is not something to be manipulated in return for legislative favors. It is, as the administration vociferously argued in court in the Arizona case, the federal executive's constitutional responsibility. Its job is to faithfully execute the laws. Non-execution is a dereliction of duty.
How did we get here? Blame Henry Paulson. The gold standard of executive overreach was achieved when he summoned the heads of the country's largest banks and informed them that henceforth the federal government was their business partner. The banks were under no legal obligation to obey. But they know the capacity of the federal government, when crossed, to cause you trouble, endless trouble. They complied.
So did BP when the president summoned its top executives to the White House to demand a $20 billion federally administered escrow fund for damages. Existing law capped damages at $75 million. BP, like the banks, understood the power of the U.S. government. Twenty billion it was.
Again, you can be pleased with the result and still be troubled by how we got there. In the modern welfare state, government has the power to regulate your life. That's bad enough. But at least there is one restraint on this bloated power: the separation of powers. Such constraints on your life must first be approved by both houses of Congress.
That's called the consent of the governed. The constitutional order is meant to subject you to the will of the people's representatives, not to the whim of a chief executive or the imagination of a loophole-seeking bureaucrat."
So, as with the individual health care mandate and same sex "marriage" and the attack on a sensible immigration law in Arizona, the will of the people is being systematically sneered at by Democrats.
And Republicans find themselves in the enviable position of defending democracy in the fall elections.
Wonder who will win that argument.....
Anon writes:
"opposition to the normalization of certain behaviors and desires doesn't equate to racism and anti-semitism, regardless of how convenient that would be for the gay agenda"
This is where we fundamentally differ. You seem to believe that there is a rational basis for society to decline, in its civil laws, to treat gay couples expressing and living their love the same as straight couples. If there is no such rational basis -- and the evidence at trial established that there is no such rational basis -- then the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the discrimination.
Now if you believe that society should be able to discriminate in its civil laws simply because a majority of voters or legislators "don't like" a group, or because the theology of the majority counsels such discrimination, then you must change the Constitution to allow such preemptory or theological standards.
The basic premise of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment is that certain rights -- notably Equal Protection of the laws -- should not be subject to popular will. We do have a process for changing the Constitution to eliminate such rights. But the Framers made it very difficult to amend the Constitution -- in large measure because they thought a government that can make drastic changes based on the whims of the moment would be too unstable and would likely trample individual rights. Indeed, that is the fundamental distinction between the 18th Century American and French Revolutions. And it is why ours endured, but France's failed.
A point straight to the mission of teacthefacts:
Did anyone notice finding of fact #47 which basically states that being gay is innate and cannot be changed? So, now we have a legal opinion, from a federal judge nonetheless, that 'ex-gays' do not exist. They may stop engaging in same sex sexual acts, but they are still gay to their core.
How about a little discussion on how this will help teachthefacts arguments on the MOCO school board's family life and human development committee and whether this will affect whether the gay=AIDS group gets to keep distributing lies to the kids.
why don't we just let this gay judge in SF decide all the facts of life?
our new infallible gay pope
An Anon writes:
"How about a little discussion on how this will help teachthefacts arguments on the MOCO school board's family life and human development committee and whether this will affect whether the gay=AIDS group gets to keep distributing lies to the kids."
I suggest writing to the Board of Education and urge an addition to the curriculum making this fact clear.
Judge Vaughn offered no proof of innateness
non-verified assertions supported political agendas have no place in a public school curriculum
Post a Comment
<< Home