NJ Court Ruling on Gay Marriage

[Don Corleone]

Christmas came early for the Republicans. I could hear Karl Rove's teeth sweating all the way from up here in NH. And just when Republicans were encountering 'issue panic', no issue they could pose themselves successfully on, along comes the NJ Supreme Court with yet another mandate from the bench: This isn't a democracy, the courts tell you what to do

Being an opponent of judicial activisim, I feel vindicated to see despite many assurances that the courts aren't really trying to ram new laws, rights and priveleges into existence, here they are, ramming away.

Just out of curiousity, are judges really that out of touch with us peasants? Do they really not realize the affect this is going to have in terms of Republican turnout? Finally, Karl Rove must be saying, finally something to bring out the social conservatives.

New Jersey itself will still go Democrat, of course, but this will definitely put Corker over Ford in Tennessee and should put Talent over McCaskill in Missouri. Thank you, New Jersey!

[Lemur]

Maybe this was the October surprise Rove promised ...

It will certainly galvanize the Republican base. Could even swing the election. Just think -- two more years of one-party rule. Yay.

[Goofball]

Actually Don, from what I've read, it was more of a non-ruling, in that they came down sqaurely on the fence, giving neither side what they were asking for. They said that same-sex partnerships must be given equal treatment as far as economics goes, but stopped short of allowing gay marriage.

Not to be flippant, but isn't everybody walking away complaining the surest sign that a ruling was fair?

[Don Corleone]

Well, as somebody who tiptoes on the narrowest of lines, supporting domestic partnerships but not outright marriage, I would agree with you. In fact, what the NJ Supreme Court said was the current system was not consitutional, but then sent it back to the state legislature to craft legislation within 180 days, at which time they would review the new policy. Eerily reminiscent of the Massachussets case, when at the 180 day turning point, the Supreme Court rejected the domestic partnership law Massashucssets had enacted and required full marriage.

Even if you're right, and the NJ court really is content to stop with domestic partnerships, do you really think that's how it's going to play in swing states like Ohio, Tennesse and Missouri, all of whom had or have state constitutional ammendment initiatives to define marriage as between a man and a woman?

This isn't about our respective stance on gay marriage even. This is about how out of touch with the population at large the imperial courts have become, not recognizing they're about to throw an election in their rush to tell the peasants what to do. And don't think that's not exactly how it's going to be spun.

Personally, I was hoping we could have an election on an issue other than gay marriage and the war, but hey, if this is how the imperial courts want it.....

[CrossLOPER]

I hate election math.

[BDC]

I don't see what the big deal is here at all (with gay marriage). One of life's mysteries.

Comically though in the tv report on it there was a rather embarrased looking 16 year old boy, presumeably dragged to the protest by his lesbian mother. Always makes you smile.

[Goofball]

Well, as somebody who tiptoes on the narrowest of lines, supporting domestic partnerships but not outright marriage, I would agree with you. In fact, what the NJ Supreme Court said was the current system was not consitutional, but then sent it back to the state legislature to craft legislation within 180 days, at which time they would review the new policy. Eerily reminiscent of the Massachussets case, when at the 180 day turning point, the Supreme Court rejected the domestic partnership law Massashucssets had enacted and required full marriage.

Even if you're right, and the NJ court really is content to stop with domestic partnerships, do you really think that's how it's going to play in swing states like Ohio, Tennesse and Missouri, all of whom had or have state constitutional ammendment initiatives to define marriage as between a man and a woman?

This isn't about our respective stance on gay marriage even. This is about how out of touch with the population at large the imperial courts have become, not recognizing they're about to throw an election in their rush to tell the peasants what to do. And don't think that's not exactly how it's going to be spun.

Who cares if a court is out of touch with the population? I would almost think that would make them more impartial. They shouldn't be basing their decisions on how they will play out in election years, but on whether or not they are conforming to the constitution in question. Everytime a court overturns a law that people didn't want overturned, they scream "judicial activism." Sometimes they're right, sometimes they are wrong. In this case, based only on what little I have read, it appears that the court made the right decision, constitutionally.

[Don Corleone]

All I have to say is that this decision, and more importantly it's timing, guarantees the Senate will remain Republican. In understanding that the Republicans have fallen ill to 'too much power' disease, for the good of the country, and yes, for the good of the Republican party itself, I hope the Democrats at least take the House now.

As for the charge of 'judicial activism' being made up, nowhere in the US or any state Constitution is the right to create and interpret laws granted to any court. This is a right and a power they have siezed for themselves and the minority party through the ages has maintained for them. If you want to know just how abusive the Courts have become, read the Constitution, then read Kelo vs. New London. They never even tried to base it on precedent. They just came right out and said "We don't want people to have property rights anymore" and poof, they were gone.

[Devastatin Dave]

here they are, ramming away.

Great choice of words.

[Ronin]

it as always struck me as very odd that courts can aparently change legislation over there...

how has this come about?...the situation seems very weird to me, since these people are not elected...how can they legislate?

[Devastatin Dave]

it as always struck me as very odd that courts can aparently change legislation over there...

how has this come about?...the situation seems very weird to me, since these people are not elected...how can they legislate?

many of us Americans find it odd as well.

[Lemur]

it as always struck me as very odd that courts can aparently change legislation over there...

how has this come about?...the situation seems very weird to me, since these people are not elected...how can they legislate?

In theory they can't. All the courts are supposed to do is reconcile the legislature's law with the Constitution. If a law is not valid under the Constitution, they strike the law down.

Their role has expanded over time, but I'll leave it to other patrons to explicate that. Honestly, I haven't done the reading.

[Duke Malcolm]

It seems quite an expansion of powers... I'm surprised nought is done about it...

[Lemur]

Duke, like I said, I haven't done nearly enough reading to give you a good answer, but at least part of the expansion of judicial power has to do with the abdication by the legislature. Many of the laws that are passed in the U.S. are so broadly (and badly) worded that someone has to step in and decide what the heck they mean. I've heard the the recent bankruptcy bill, for instance, contains grammatical errors, contradictions and blatant cut-and-paste screwups. If the legislators would write clear and logical laws, no doubt the bench would not have been able to overstep.

Now I'll shut up until someone more qualified cares to comment.

Back on topic, it seems the Don's predictions are being raised elsewhere, both pro and con.

[Crazed Rabbit]

In theory they can't. All the courts are supposed to do is reconcile the legislature's law with the Constitution. If a law is not valid under the Constitution, they strike the law down.

Their role has expanded over time, but I'll leave it to other patrons to explicate that. Honestly, I haven't done the reading.

I'm not sure if they're even supposed to have that much power- that is to strike down unconstitutional laws. IIRC, one founder thought the Supreme court would be the weakest branch.

CR

[Prince of the Poodles]

"They attack gay people when the sun rises, and they attack gay people when the sun sets, so no matter what the court had done in New Jersey, they would have said Americans need to shift their attention from the real threats to our country to the alleged threat from gay couples seeking to settle down," Wolfson said.

I will still vote GOP because of their tough stance on terrorism, but I sure as hell hate some of them for using gay people's desire for equal treatment as a scare tactic. Some of the words they speak are so hurtful, but expected.

I dont give a damn about being able to say im "married", I just want to be able to visit my loved one in the hostpital just like a spouse would. Its simple things like that which are important, you can keep your "definition of marriage".

What I didnt expect was Bush's complete reversal on his treatment of gays. If you listen to those recorded tapes that made the news a year or so ago, he doesnt really think we are a threat, but he has definately betrayed my vote (2000). I guess thats politics, but his "compassion" flew out the window as soon as he or his controllers saw that making us the boogeyman could bring in big votes.

If we ever manage to destroy Al Queada and bring the terrorism issue under control, the GOP will never get my vote again.

[Goofball]

I'm not sure if they're even supposed to have that much power- that is to strike down unconstitutional laws. IIRC, one founder thought the Supreme court would be the weakest branch.

CR

I understand what you are saying, but consider the problem:

The responsibility of the courts is to enforce the law of the land. If a "higher law" (the constitution) is in conflict with a "lower law" (enacted legislation), it just makes sense to me that the courts have no choice but to declare the "lower law" null and void.

What possible alternative is there to having legislators enact all the laws they want and the constitution be damned?

[AntiochusIII]

If we ever manage to destroy Al Queada and bring the terrorism issue under control, the GOP will never get my vote again.

If you think the Republicans are honestly being the better group to deal with terrorism...



Surely 3 years of proof since 2003 should've convinced you the other way?

Moreover, about the power of the court issue; I think they are still far weaker than both Congress and the Presidency. If you want to complain about overstepping one's bounds, I'd be complaining against the executive first, you know, since they've been breaching their bounds far more often than the Judiciary does. The Patriot Act is a piece of emotionally-charged demagoguery dunghole as far as I'm concerned. But that's because a panicking Congress gave it to the President, too.

I don't like the Supreme Court than the next man: the moment people can clearly separate judges into liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, and that their seats are political seats to be attempting to capture like some kind of capture-the-flag game -- that's the moment they lose any credibility to me. Kelo was a despicable ruling; but it would essentially fall into disuse if the executive sees fit and the legislature can make an effort to practically nullify it with a big package of protection laws...

After all, Andrew Jackson completely ignored a perfectly morally acceptable and constitutional ruling about the Indians -- especially in terms of honoring treaties -- and proceeded to throw them into some serious suffering and oppression; he wasn't impeached.

I haven't read into this NJ court ruling to make my judgement yet. Not that I wouldn't expect that bastard Rove to immediately prepare a massive 100 million $ campaign to show "how the liberals manipulate the Court to allow evil, sodomizing gays to destroy the institution of marriage; Think Of the CHILDREN, ho!!!!!OMG!!!" right at this moment.

[Kanamori]

I'm not sure if they're even supposed to have that much power- that is to strike down unconstitutional laws. IIRC, one founder thought the Supreme court would be the weakest branch.

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants them that. Marbury v. Madison was when they, some strong Federalist Judges, interpreted the power into the Constitution with cirlced reasoning.

[Prince of the Poodles]

If you think the Republicans are honestly being the better group to deal with terrorism...



Surely 3 years of proof since 2003 should've convinced you the other way?

8 years of Clinton doing absolutely nothing was all the convincing I needed.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I understand what you are saying, but consider the problem:

The responsibility of the courts is to enforce the law of the land. If a "higher law" (the constitution) is in conflict with a "lower law" (enacted legislation), it just makes sense to me that the courts have no choice but to declare the "lower law" null and void.

What possible alternative is there to having legislators enact all the laws they want and the constitution be damned?

Supposedly, the legislators are only supposed to pass constitutional laws.

Then, it becomes a matter of whether you have some 500 people determining what's constitutional, as opposed to 9 people. And as the court has shown, they are all to willing to misinterpret and stamp on the constitution. They're not protectors of it, just guides for its decay.

I dont give a damn about being able to say im "married", I just want to be able to visit my loved one in the hostpital just like a spouse would.

I wouldn't mind that at all. There should be some way to get that to work without going through the whole political quagmire that is gay marriage, like lobbying hospitals or passing a law to let a significant other visit in the hospital.

Crazed Rabbit

[Xiahou]

I wouldn't mind that at all. There should be some way to get that to work without going through the whole political quagmire that is gay marriage, like lobbying hospitals or passing a law to let a significant other visit in the hospital.

Indeed, there should be a mechanism in place for people to setup such priveledges regardless of whether they're gay, straight, in love, siblings, friends, or just business partners.

As to the NJ courts- I'd certainly call it legislating from the bench. They're in effect ordering the legislature to produce a law... That's overstepping their bounds.

[Goofball]

Supposedly, the legislators are only supposed to pass constitutional laws.

But you and I both know that that isn't the case. So what is the remedy when they do violate that covenant, if not the courts?

If congress passed a law tomorrow outlawing all personal firearm ownership, wouldn't you want there to be some protection other than waiting for the next election then hopefully being able to vote in new legislators who would repeal the law?

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

NJ pride.

[lars573]

What's Ironic is that court rulings similar to this happened in 9 provincial/territorial supereme courts in Canada 3 years ago. No one found anything wrong with the idea that the court had such power either.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Your constitution probably permits judicial legislation.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't get it. Didn't they find that banning gay marriage went against NJ's constitution? Isn't that what the courts are supposed to do, uphold constitutions? Or is that only when you people don't agree with them?

[Xiahou]

I don't get it. Didn't they find that banning gay marriage went against NJ's constitution? Isn't that what the courts are supposed to do, uphold constitutions? Or is that only when you people don't agree with them?

It wasn't banned afaik- it's just that NJ marriage law didn't allow for it. An appropriate action for the court to take imo, would be to find NJ marriage laws unconstitutional, but they dont have the guts to handle the uproar that would cause so instead they overstep their bounds and order the legislature to make a law for them.

Personally, I don't see whats unconstitutional about the definition of marriage- but I guess that's another can of worms.

[GoreBag]

What's Ironic is that court rulings similar to this happened in 9 provincial/territorial supereme courts in Canada 3 years ago. No one found anything wrong with the idea that the court had such power either.

When it happened in the '80's, plenty of people had a problem with it.

Your constitution probably permits judicial legislation.

AARRRGH, there's no such thing as judicial legislation!

I don't get it. Didn't they find that banning gay marriage went against NJ's constitution? Isn't that what the courts are supposed to do, uphold constitutions? Or is that only when you people don't agree with them?

Bingo.