Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Judicial Napolean Complex

Hey you law-talking guys -and I know there are some of you out there - question for you: What the f*ck? Sorry. Let me rephrase. What the f*cking, f*ck?!!! Answers are welcome in the comments section.

Salient details are thus:

Judge Richard Kramer of San Francisco County's trial-level Superior Court likened the [gay-marriage] ban to laws requiring racial segregation in schools, and saidthere appears to be "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples.

Got that? Judge can't figure it out. So he says it's not a law anymore. For the record, judges are not allowed to do that. We elect folks to local, state, and federal legislatures to make those decisions. This judge apparently didn't get the memo to that effect.

But of course, since only us old-fashioned moral scolds oppose gay-marriage anymore, no problem, right? As long as the result is what we want, why worry that we've just allowed someone to usurp the principle role of the principle branch of our democratic form of government? You'd have to be an extremist to oppose this, right?

No. You'd have to be a short-sighted moron to think that this judge is fit to serve another day on the bench. But expect every other government official to kowtow dutifully to this patently unconstitutional judicial decree until some other judge overturns it.

That's not the proper response in a representative government folks. We the people are sovereign. And we never delegated this judge or any other judge the right to overturn legislation on the basis that he or she can't find "rational purpose" to the laws the people have passed. You want to think this stuff out before deciding what the law should be judge? Run for the House or Senate, just like the rest of us.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that this judge deserves more than impeachment. He deserves prison. His act, on top of being an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative perogative, is an attack on our form of representative government.

But none of that will happen. He'll sit fat and happy on his bench overwhelmed by accolades from those who approve of the ends he attempted to enable. Question for all of those folks though. Would you give similar weight to the opinion of the same judge had he ruled the opposite on the same basis - that he found no rational basis to allow same-sex marriage?

Of course you wouldn't. Nor should you. This is a rogue judge substituting his personal opinion for the law, and that's not something anyone should endorse. Impeach him. Remove him. Banish him from public discourse and the same for all his kind.

(Hat tips to Dennis Prager for alerting me to this today, and to Stones Cry Out and Flown to the Roll for finding the articles I linked to.)


UPDATE: As promised in the comments section below, law-talking guy Learded Foot kicks this decision around (lame pun intended).

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not a law guy (not even close), but I'd like to comment. Can I? The scary part here is that this guy is a Superior Court judge.

Funny thing is that I heard Barbara Boxer chastizing Bush nominee Carolyn Kuhl for a decision she made as a Superior Court judge. Kuhl calmly told Boxer that her role as a Superior Court judge was to strictly conform to caselaw. It was not up to her to set precedent - that was for the appeals and Supreme Court. She told Boxer that she too did not agree with the ruling, and that if she would have read the ruling, she said so and offered advice to the appeals court on the matter. Boxer mumbled something or another. Kuhl replied - as a Superior Court judge, I had no other choice.

This Superior Court judge clearly saw nothing wrong with overturning precedent. What he should have done, and I'm told Superior Court judges do all the time, is rule, then describe in your decision how the ruling is proper under existing precedent, but hint as to why it may be subject to appeal. But this guy is just fishing for headlines.

Rick Brady
www.stonescryout.org

2:12 AM  
Blogger LearnedFoot said...

I'll try to post the legal angle on this today (hopefully in keeping with my churlish manner).

LF

8:10 AM  
Blogger LearnedFoot said...

I found the opinion (a little difficult - would have been nice fir the reporter to actually tell us the caption of the case).

After a cursory glance, it looks like this decision will get nuked -er, reversed - on appeal.

I'll post something at lunch.

8:29 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home