The Massachusetts Supreme Court likes speaking out of both sides of its mouth. See this recent CNN article for more.
As you may know, back in 2003 the same court decided that the state constitution "guaranteed gays the right to marry." Then they required the state legislature to make this happen through legislation. I believe that they clearly overstepped their bounds. Now however, on the opposite side of the issue they refuse to intervene.
The court agrees that when voters sent a marriage proposition (to be included on the 2008 ballot) to the legislature that the legislature should vote on it. However, the "Supreme Judicial Court determined it could not force a vote."
~Matt
As you may know, back in 2003 the same court decided that the state constitution "guaranteed gays the right to marry." Then they required the state legislature to make this happen through legislation. I believe that they clearly overstepped their bounds. Now however, on the opposite side of the issue they refuse to intervene.
The court agrees that when voters sent a marriage proposition (to be included on the 2008 ballot) to the legislature that the legislature should vote on it. However, the "Supreme Judicial Court determined it could not force a vote."
"Beyond resorting to aspirational language that relies on theI call that judicial activism hiding beneath the skirts of liberalism. They (Legislative leaders and jurists) are afraid that the people might not support their illegal usurpation of power. Perhaps the justices shouldn't force the legislature to do anything (such as follow the constitution?), but then they should have done nothing in 2003!
presumptive good faith of elected representatives, there is no
presently articulated judicial remedy for the Legislature's
indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties," the court
wrote.
~Matt
powered by performancing firefox
No comments:
Post a Comment