On Wednesday, yet another activist judge decided to impose his definition of marriage on an unwilling state, this time in Kentucky.
There’s so much nonsense in the ruling, like so many that have come before it, that it’s hard to know where to begin.
The federal “judge”, John Heyburn, dragged out all the same old canards. He repeated the completely nonsensical claim that marriage has nothing to do with procreation because not each and every married couple in America has a child (If all laws must correlate 100 percent with their aims in order to be rational, then we’re going to have to get rid of a lot more laws). And of course he invoked the phony Loving v. Virginia analogy.
But his most egregious move was to completely contradict the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, while purportedly using that very decision as the basis for his irrational ruling.
The Supreme Court’s Windsor decision was an incoherent mess, but that isn’t why Heyburn chose to directly contradict its holdings. No, he claimed to be following the precedent while violating it.
In short, the essential holding of Windsor was that it is the states’ prerogative to define marriage, not the federal government. Following the precedent would have required Heyburn (himself acting as part of the federal government) to uphold Kentucky’s legal definition of marriage. But the “judge” ruled just the opposite. He threw out the state’s definition, supposedly on the basis of Windsor. Eric Holder’s DOJ is doing the same thing. So we have federal officials overturning state definitions based on a Supreme Court ruling that said it’s the states, not the feds, who have the power to define marriage. It’s all really just Orwellian.
None of it is based on reason, on the law, or on the Constitution. The “progressive” elites of our society want marriage to be redefined, so they can preen about how “tolerant” and “progressive” they are, and so it shall be done, by any means necessary. Nothing like the rule of law or respect for representative government is going to stop these people.
The process that killed Prop 8 in California should concern anyone who cares about democracy and the rule of law. The cheaters won.
The Legal Circus That Killed Proposition 8
Via The Corner at NRO, here’s a press release from the leftist propaganda outfit Media Matters for America:
I wanted to make sure you had seen Media Matters’ latest research on five major newspapers reporting on Sen. Jeff Sessions’ opening statement at the confirmation hearing of Judge Sonia Sotomayor without noting that in 1986, Sessions’ nomination as a U.S. district court judge was rejected following allegations that Sessions had a history of making racially charged comments.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or if you would like additional information.
Media Matters for America
Judge Sotomayor has a history of making racially charged comments which is much clearer than the allegations made by opponents of Sessions’ nomination at his Senate hearing in 1986. So is Media Matters calling for the Senate to reject Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court on that basis? Or are they simply attempting to smear any opponents of her nomination? Of course this is a rhetorical question.
The same question could be asked of senators who voted against Sessions, but plan to vote for Sotomayor.
A lot of attention has been paid to Rudy Giuliani’s position on abortion, and to his muddled answer to the abortion question at the first Republican presidential primary debate May 3rd. But not much focus has been put on what may be the most problematic part of his answer. As quoted by Charles Krauthammer in his latest column:
On repealing Roe v. Wade:
Giuliani: It would be okay to repeal. It would be also [okay] if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision.
Moderator: Would it be okay if they didn’t repeal it?
Giuliani: I think the court has to make that decision, and then the country can deal with it. . . . States can make their own decisions.
It’s fine to have disagreement about what the role of government should be in regulating abortion, but that last part of Giuliani’s answer was just factually wrong and contradictory. It bears repeating that if Roe is overturned, it won’t make abortion illegal in the United States, it will merely return the issue to the democratic process – i.e. it will allow states to decide.
But if Roe is not overturned, then states can’t make their own decisions. It’s an either/or proposition – either you’re for judges deciding or you’re for the states deciding. Mr. Giuliani can’t have it both ways on that question, pro-choice or not. Perhaps he simply misspoke as he was being cut off in the overly rushed format of the debate. As he seeks to clarify his position on abortion, he needs to clarify what he was trying to say in that instance as well. He needs to demonstrate that he understands all of the issues involved – the larger questions about the constitution and the proper role of judges as well as the abortion issue. Ones position on Roe and on abortion are two separate issues.
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Giuliani basically repeated his answer from the debate, unfortunately including the “let states decide” part:
GIULIANI: What I meant to convey [during the May 3rd debate] – if I didn’t convey it correctly, I’ll convey it again. The country could handle it. I mean, the country – we’ve got a federal system. What would happen is states would make decisions.
Chris Wallace did a good job in pressing him on his abortion views, and Mr. Giuliani’s position about not having a litmus test for judicial nominations was reasonable (overall, Giuliani handled himself quite well throughout the interview), but Wallace should have pressed for an answer to the question of whether Giuliani himself thinks Roe was decided wrongly. We at least would still like to hear a clear answer to that question.
“Schumer Is Right”
From CNN’s website:
Justice Antonin Scalia opened the Supreme Court’s new term Tuesday by questioning whether a man deported to Mexico after a drug conviction would be “abstaining from tequila” for fear of violating his U.S. parole terms.
The remark came as justices heard an immigration case involving a Texas man, Reymundo Toledo-Flores, who was deported in April after being convicted of illegally entering the United States.
This may be a small quibble, but language matters. Isn’t a person who is deported after “being convicted of illegally entering the United States” a Mexican man, not “a Texas man”?