6th Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Gay Marriage Bans

[FaninAma]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/06/gay-marriage-appeals-court-ohio-michigan-kentucky-tennessee/15712319/

Holy cow, there are at least 2 judges at the appelate level who do not see themselves as judicial crusaders whose job is to slap down the wishes of what they consider an intellectually inferior electorate who vote for these laws and pay their salaries. The quotes from the dissenting Democratic judge is very telling. She doesn't even realize how arrogant and elitist her opinion sounds.


Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, a Democratic appointee, delivered a blistering 22-page dissent. She disputed Sutton's reasoning that judges should not decide the issue."If we in the judiciary do not have the authority, and indeed the responsibility, to right fundamental wrongs left excused by a majority of the electorate, our whole intricate, constitutional system of checks and balances, as well as the oaths to which we swore, prove to be nothing but shams," Daughtrey said.

What a ****ing elitist arrogant line of reasoning.

[badger]

I dunno Fan, why do we have cases decided by judges instead of putting everything to a vote by the people? Why do people consult lawyers and courts instead of taking the law into their own hands?

I will readily consult the experts when it comes to things I have not studied or don't fully understand and "the law" is one of those things.

I agree that judges have a responsibility to overturn unconstitutional laws, as the dissenting judge declared. However, I think that where we disagree with the judge is whether this law is unconstitutional.

I'm ready for the U.S Supreme Court to decide this dispute. They took the easy way out during the the last round by leaving lower court decisions in place. Are they going to leave this lower court decision in place too?

[FaninAma]

Badger, prior to 1930 there were less than 35 laws enacted by the people's representatives that that were overturned on Constitutional grounds. Most of these rulings occured during the FDR administration.(1.) Now we have an activist, crusading judiciary that overturns the will of the people without hesitation. Why is that? I contend that until this century the judicial branch was educated to respect the right of people to decide important social and moral issues for themselves. That is how a society grows intellectually and morally.....not by being dictated to by a group of non-elected ideologically driven judges.

I could give a rat's *** about gay marriage. What I care about is how it is legalized. I personally think the decision to legalize marijuana is selfish and destructive but it was voted in by the citizens of of Colorado and other states. They will deal with the consequences eventually. But in the meantime I would not support the court system coming in and overturning those referendums.

I will wager that if the courts use a heavy-handed approach to force this issue down the throats of the citizens(no pun intended) it will become a chronically divisive issue just like abortion has.

1. http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/docs/legislation.html.

[SoonerorLater]

Badger, prior to 1930 there were less than 35 laws enacted by the people's representatives that that were overturned on Constitutional grounds. Most of these rulins occured during the FDR administration.(1.) Now we have an activist, crusading judiciary that overturns the will of the people without hesitation. Why is that? I contend that until this century the judicial branch was educated to respect the right of people to decide important social and moral issues for themselves. That is how a society grows intellectually and morally.....not by being dictated to by a group of non-elected ideologically driven judges.

I could give a rat's *** about gay marriage. What I care about is how it is legalized. I personally think the decision to legalize marijuana is selfish and destructive but it was voted in by the citizens of of Colorado and other states. They will deal with the consequences eventually. But in the meantime I would not support the court system coming in and overturning those referendums.

I will wager that if the courts use a heavy-handed approach to force this issue down the throats of the citizens(no pun intended) it will become a chronically divisive issue just like abortion has.

1http://www.cqpress.com/incontext/constitution/docs/legislation.html.

I would suggest it started earlier than that. Much earlier. The Marshall Court Marbury v. Madison. Combine that with our Stare Decisis judicial process and it's like once we make a wrong turn we just keep going. From that seed the Judicial has taken an outsized role.

[FaninAma]

I would suggest it started earlier than that. Much earlier. The Marshall Court Marbury v. Madison. Combine that with our Stare Decisis judicial process and it's like once we make a wrong turn we just keep going. From that seed the Judicial has taken an outsized role.

I understand it started with Madison v. Marbury but the court only used this self-appointed power a handful of times over 133 years. It's been over the last 80 years that the courts have encroached on the Constitutional territory of the legislative branch with ever increasing frequency.

Don't you think the statements from the dissenting judge in the 6th Circuit court are telling? And why do we accept their opinions as edicts from on high? Heck, a lot of the important rulings from the SCOTUS are on a 5-4 decisions. Both sides can't be right or infallible. They are just as big of idealogues as the electorate and our elected representatives ....maybe more so.

I would propose that those individuals who are drawn to a career as a Federal jurist do not share my desire for a smaller, less intrusive Federal government. On the contrary, I think they are drawn to the Federal judiciary because they have a thirst to wield the power represented by their position on the bench. Federal judges, as a group, are never going to willingly give up any of their power and they are never willingly going to support laws that reduce the scope of federal involvement in our personal lives or the level of federal governemt funding(read their own personal funding.) needed to support that involvement.

The legislative branch should be the most powerful branch of the government but between the constant over-reaching actions of the executive and judicial branches the legislative branch has been trivialized and as a result the will of we the people has been severely weakened.

[SoonerorLater]

I understand it started with Madison v. Marbury but the court only used this self-appointed power a handful of times over 133 years. It's been over the last 80 years that the courts have encroached on the Constitutional territory of the legislative branch with ever increasing frequency.

Don't you think the statements from the dissenting judge in the 6th Circuit court are telling? And why do we accept their opinions as edicts from on high? Heck, a lot of the important rulings from the SCOTUS are on a 5-4 decisions. Both sides can't be right or infallible. They are just as big of idealogues as the electorate and our elected representatives ....maybe more so.

I would propose that those individuals who are drawn to a career as a Federal jurist do not share my desire for a smaller, less intrusive Federal government. On the contrary, I think they are drawn to the Federal judiciary because they have a thirst to wield the power represented by their position on the bench. Federal judges, as a group, are never going to willingly give up any of their power and they are never willingly going to support laws that reduce the scope of federal involvement in our personal lives or the level of federal governemt funding(read their own personal funding.) needed to support that involvement.

The legislative branch should be the most powerful branch of the government but between the constant over-reaching actions of the executive and judicial branches the legislative branch has been trivialized and as a result the will of we the people has been severely weakened.

I really don't disagree with anything you said I was just saying the timeline was longer. IMO there are a cascade of events that heightened the pace over the last century. There are plenty of reasons. The 14th Amendment. The Seventeenth Amendment had the effect of weakening the Tenth Amendment. Once States rights were negated in favor of the Federal Government all sorts of cases found their way the Federal Courts that would have never have seen the light of day in earlier times.

A spineless Congress who would rather deflect controversy than step up to the plate. A growing base of political opportunists that see a way to exploit the leverage the judicial process provides. Remember in our system a a Supreme Court decision has the effect of a law itself. It's been a process of incrementation .

[badger]

I will wager that if the courts use a heavy-handed approach to force this issue down the throats of the citizens(no pun intended) it will become a chronically divisive issue just like abortion has
I agree that force feeding stuff is a great way to get your kid to spit food out rather than enjoy (and actually eat and digest) it. Unfortunately, we're seeing a lot less compromise and middle ground elected officials, which yields ground to the extremist, activist types whether elected or not.

It will be an interesting next two years