I find it interesting that back when Washington was obliging the south to integrate, conservatives screamed for states’ rights. Now that they have their hand on the federal throttle they are trying to force Massachusetts “to overturn the year-old decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage”

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/A...html?oref=login

And California and the other states to end their legalization of medical marijuana.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/29/politics...-scotus.html?hp

However, the Supremes refused to cooperate, declining without comment to hear the challenge to the Massachusetts marriage ruling.

SCOTUS was correct in denying cert to this. As the Court indicated, there is no substantive federal issue involved. Does this mean the Court will do the same for every such case that comes its way? Not exactly. The Court would probably take a case if, for example, one state decreed another state's gay marriage equal to its own straight marriage because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In that case, the Court would be more inclined to address that point and clarify whether the Full Faith and Credit clause does, indeed, cover marriages. The DOMA might even come into play there.

[ November 29, 2004, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Agreed.

The catch is, there was no substantive federal issue involved in the 2000 Florida recount case either. It was strictly a question of state law and besides, not one but two remedies were already in place if the process dragged on too long: the elected Legislature choosing the state's electors, or the elected U.S. House deciding the election in the absence of an Electoral College majority. The outcome probably would've been the same (and it wasn't an issue in '04), but no questionable new precedent would've been set.

Not that I'd ever accuse a 5-4 SC majority of being "activist judges" or anything.

Oh, topic? "State's rights" is like "less government" -- a principle invoked when convenient and ignored when not.

Au contraire. There was a significant federal substantive issue involved (both a federal election code and constitutional violation), one that enveloped a state issue. As I've explained countless times before, the U.S. Constitution specifically gives to state legislatures--not state courts or state executives--the sole power in determining their electors. Once the FL. Supreme Court took this away from their state's legislature, they violated the U.S. Constitution and consequently violated federal election law. Even the FL. Chief Justice at that time, a Democrat, dissented, publicly rebuking his colleagues for doing something they were not permitted to do.

The Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was one that protected a state's right. Here, "state" doesn't include the FL. Supreme Court or even Governor Bush. It includes specifically and only the state legislature.

But the Supremes didn't return the decision to the FL Legislature, where it belonged. That would've been protecting a state right. Instead, they took matters into their own hands and decided the question (and the election) themselves. If that isn't judicial activism, I don't know what is.

And as I've said before, either the FL Leg or the U.S. House almost certainly would've decided in W's favor, based on GOP majorities in both. But at least elected legislators are accountable. Federal judges with lifetime appointments aren't.

Yeah, but at least those crazy activist judges hold states accountable when their legislators try to take the law into their own hand. And just because it may be a popular thing in a state, doesn't mean it's legally right either. The U.S. Constitution isn't a popularity contest, it's what our laws are supposed to be based on.

And what did that have to do with Der Fuhrer's appointment to the presidency?

You are incorrect. SCOTUS actually did return the matter to the FL. legislature. In effect, they told the FL. Supreme Court, more than once, that they could not do what they had attempted to do, that their legislature already set the dates and rules; but along came the FL. Supremes, changing the election regulations and dates that were specifically established by the FL. State Legislature and stipulated by the U.S. Constitution and Federal Election Codes.

Some federal judges seem to have alot of time on their hands lately.

A very common trait among federal employees, it would seem.

Thom, surely you're not suggesting that an individual or group in the political sphere has refined or reconsidered a particular point of view in order to adapt to changing times or circumstances! Why that's just unheard of. I mean, how dare members of a vaguely-defined political group today not think exactly the same way different members of the presumably same group did 40 or 50 years ago? I mean, really.

Much like any other principle. Liberals say they're "pro-choice," but pretty much only when speaking of abortion. School choice or choice in how to invest ones's Social Security dollars? Nay. Democrats and Republicans talk about "fiscal responsibility" but neither really adhere to such a principle at all. People who say they want to "stay out of people's bedrooms" are full of shit too. I would hope they wouldn't be gung-ho on sex between a 14-year-old and a 34-year-old, even if it takes place in the bedroom. And are these "stay out of the bedroom" people just terribly prudish about sex in the kitchen or the living room? At any rate, if I owned a gun and kept it in my bedroom in DC it would still be illegal. You can't choose to legally own a gun in DC, a city where people pride themselves on being pro-choice. You can pick apart any statement or find exceptions to any principle from any side of the political spectrum.

The judge has ruled.

From Best in Show:

Buck Laughlin: "I don't think I could ever get used to being poked and prodded. I told my proctologist one time, 'Why don't you take me out to dinner and a movie sometime?'"

Trevor Beckwith: "Yes, I remember you said that last year..."

So it shall be written. So it shall be done. You're finally learning.

Is that sorta like the right wingnuts who say they're "pro family," so much so that they have 2 or 3 of them?

Yes, Raze. Very good. You get a star!

MIB, In the interests of cinematic accuracy, the correct quote is, "So let it be written, [contemptuous wave of arm], so let it be done!"

Happy Yul-tide!

My point exactly. However, most of today's pols are way too self-righteous to admit it.

Oh, and MIB's circular logic about Florida is somewhere between "I voted for it before I voted against it" and "Sometimes you have to burn a village to save it" (but closer to the latter). If the Supremes had wanted the FL Leg to decide, they would have let the FL Leg decide (by picking the electors itself). We would've gotten the same president, but at least without the questionable new precedent, which will come back to haunt us someday.

[ December 03, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: danimal ]

gmg, yes, I know. I have used several forms of that quote, depending on tense or just whatever mood I might be in.

What part of my brilliant explanation do you not understand? The FL. State Legislature DID--repeat--DID choose its electors. They spelled it out in a simple law, the way every legislature does so. The FL. Supreme Court then came and ignored this, instead acting on their own, something again, their own Democratic Chief Justice said they couldn't do.

This is why SCOTUS said, in laymen's terms, "Uh uh. You can't do that. You're doing something only the state legislature can do, and has done. Now, stop it. We're sending this back so it can continue the right way." When the FL. Court ignored this SCOTUS ruling, effectively slapping the face of SCOTUS, the High Court then said, "Enough already. We told you once but you ignored us. We remanded this to be polite. Now you leave us with no choice but to overrule you in finality, stopping your unconstitutional behavior."

The Rule of Law won in glorious fashion.

I "understand" your explanation perfectly. I simply don't accept it. But you're thoroughly convinced of it, so I'm saying my piece and moving on.

Well, the truth is often difficult to accept. wink

It also depends on whatever personality he is that day.

To arms!

:confused:

I was wondering why it took you so long to respond.

So I see.