First shot back across the bow, or just another maverick day for Oregon? That state's highest court has declared gay marriages void--by unanimous decision.
That court was just doing what it is supposed to do based on text. It ought to be unremarkable, non-politicized, an easy exposition of the law/text. The Old Press should not be able to report it as remarkable (Although it is, given that American judges can be quite the textual degenerates.) or as if it is some political "victory" for one partisan or another.
But what is happening at the highest levels of the American judiciary is that they are politicizing themselves and doing away with their limitation just as Jefferson said they might. Then people wonder why the nomination process of judges is so viscerally politicized and partisan in the body politic. It's because Leftist judges politicized themselves by becoming the public policy arm of the ACLU and so on.
A progressive may argue that much of the judiciary has been appointed by conservatives. That is like blaming someone trying to get some clean water from a sewer for getting a piece of excrement in it sometimes.
No. What's happening is people like mynym try to politicize what's going on. Then try to blame the constitutional process for doing its job. It's inactivist citizens and legislators like that, that give the process a bad rap. Conservatives act through cronyism and conyism to bully the process through name calling, and appointing their crooked, incompetent friends into positions of power.
Right wingers are only good at rebranding to push their ulterior motives. It's time liberals, leftists, progressives, activists (or whatever the new label Connies try to pin on us) push back. If it's a playground match they want, show'em we can rant and name call too.
And when the judges see good, honest, hard-working liberals will stick up for them, maybe then they'll strike down these unconstitutional laws.
2 comments:
"Can we shut up about "judicial activism" already?"
No.
That court was just doing what it is supposed to do based on text. It ought to be unremarkable, non-politicized, an easy exposition of the law/text. The Old Press should not be able to report it as remarkable (Although it is, given that American judges can be quite the textual degenerates.) or as if it is some political "victory" for one partisan or another.
But what is happening at the highest levels of the American judiciary is that they are politicizing themselves and doing away with their limitation just as Jefferson said they might. Then people wonder why the nomination process of judges is so viscerally politicized and partisan in the body politic. It's because Leftist judges politicized themselves by becoming the public policy arm of the ACLU and so on.
A progressive may argue that much of the judiciary has been appointed by conservatives. That is like blaming someone trying to get some clean water from a sewer for getting a piece of excrement in it sometimes.
No. What's happening is people like mynym try to politicize what's going on. Then try to blame the constitutional process for doing its job. It's inactivist citizens and legislators like that, that give the process a bad rap. Conservatives act through cronyism and conyism to bully the process through name calling, and appointing their crooked, incompetent friends into positions of power.
Right wingers are only good at rebranding to push their ulterior motives. It's time liberals, leftists, progressives, activists (or whatever the new label Connies try to pin on us) push back. If it's a playground match they want, show'em we can rant and name call too.
And when the judges see good, honest, hard-working liberals will stick up for them, maybe then they'll strike down these unconstitutional laws.
Post a Comment