Today's decision by the California Supreme Court is yet another judicial puscht.
It is appalling. Incredibly, a feverish will to power on the part of small numbers of judges is rapidly eroding a citizen's standing as the ultimate lawgiver. Courts unbound by any sense of limits, by any sense of restraint, threaten the basic understanding that has long undergirded the Republic --that the laws proceed from the open consent of the people, and that the ultimate laws, the federal and state constitutions, are documents of fixed meaning and structure, not merely window dressing on the rule of judicial elites or empty phrases waiting for elites to fill them with meaning.
Today's ruling framed the question before the California Supreme Court this
way:
The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.That was not in fact the central question. The central question was whether the representative nature of the California state government, including its initiative provisions, would be upheld.They were not. The California Supreme Court asserted its ultimate power today in a way that is shameful and deeply destructive of the ability of a free people to govern themselves.
The emphases are my own. Whether you agree with the decision or not is probably not as concerning the underlying issue of judicial activism imposing its will on the people. I, for one, do not agree with the decision and find this outcome doubly disconcerting.
In other news, I finally put together my first post for Blogcritics, but I have to put my stuff there before I put it on here. It's a nerdy piece, but hopefully it's entertaining. I'll post it on here soon enough.
3 comments:
You inspired me today so I replied here and will post on my own blog. So here are my quick 2 cents...
I think that judicial activism is ridiculous. They have stepped over the line and a pretty definite line with this issue specifically.
That leads me to question WHY it was done in the first place...by a Republican dominated judicial panel...in an election year...in a state that often sees apathy from its Republican and/or conservative constituency? I guess that's the conspiracy theorist in me that says that maybe, just maybe, this was done knowing that the vote for Prop 22 passed with a 61% acceptance. Knowing that something was needed to rally the conservative vote. Knowing that a stunt like this might actually have a chance at swinging a state that hasn't presidentially voted Republican for the previous 4 elections.
Most likely, it is a ploy to garner more of a Republican showing to vote this June. The reason being, "Californians for Equal Representation" will be seeking to split the electoral votes in the enormous Great State of California. The proposal for vote suggests that electoral votes be handed out in a district-by-district manner. The US Constitutions allows states to determine how the electoral votes will be awarded (even allowing state legislature to supersede or ignore the popular vote - remember the hanging chads in Florida?) This is not illegal, nor is it antiquated. Maine and Nebraska currently utilize the method. To be fair, these states are small (2 and 3 districts respectively), considerably homogeneous and the candidate has traditionally carried unanimously, all of the districts in the state. I find it hard to believe that this would not be an improvement on the inherently flawed electoral system - a compromise if you will. This method would better represent the individual by better representing the community. Where better to allocate conservative/liberal votes to their respective districts than the hugely diverse State of California? I, for one, would still like to feel as though I am being represented. I would like to have a voice.
I digress...I guess the optimist in me sees this as another political game to "get the vote out" and hopes that the judicial appointees would not so pretentiously overstep their bounds. It smells of Roe v Wade and I hope that it is not. Let us vote on it - let us decide. Judicial panels like the Supreme Court of the state or of the Union are present to interpret the laws, not to make them.
OK, so that wasn't a "quick" 2 cents...more like a long nickel.
Interesting thoughts, but I just gotta say, I just don't buy something like that. I really think with all of this stuff you really have to subscribe to the Occam's razor principle. Buying into some kind of right wing subversive manipulation of the system is just too far-fetched to really be happening. It was a 4-3 vote, and more than likely it was a court that had been feeling a lot of pressure from advocates for the decision as well as seeing a chance to achieve some notoriety, and seized the opportunity. I think that's all it is. I almost think it would be worse for them to even try and play that game, even if it's to the benefit of the conservative philosophy. And I also don't think the electoral system is so flawed that people are up in arms about having a radical makeover of the whole thing. Yeah, it's got its problems, but people have not been clamoring for something that has been working for 200 years to have a makeover because of one or two election cycles.
That was just the conspiracy theorist in me looking for hope in deplorable judicial activism. I know its not the simplest answer, but what conspiracy theories are?
It probably didn't even qualify as I have not heard much about it. I know that North Carolina is or was trying to do the same thing. That would really screw the news reporters up on "Election Watch" - no more red or blue states, just a patriot leopard in the shape of the US. Kinda funny.
Post a Comment