Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
National Review Online, Ed Whelan:
Consider the totality of Judge Walker’s conduct in the anti-Prop 8 case:
Let’s start with Walker’s initial case-management conference when he determined, to the surprise even of plaintiffs’ lawyer Ted Olson, that the case couldn’t be resolved, one way or the other (as other courts have done in similar cases), as a matter of law but would instead require extensive discovery into supposed factual issues.
Let’s continue with Walker’s insane and unworkable inquiry into the subjective motivations of the more than seven million Californians who voted in support of Prop 8.
Whelan has much, much more; but as far as I’m concerned he can stop right there. He has me at this second one.
It’s getting close to the time we might as well shut the whole experiment down. Our votes are being picked apart by our judges, who in turn are charged with scrutinizing the constitutional consistency of the rules we vote in — and are supposed to have zero authority to make policy of their own. They have been doing this, in part, because they are displeased with the motivations we have when we vote in these laws. It’s a given that they have not accomplished, nor have they attempted, the daunting task of polling each one of the millions of Californians who voted for Prop 8. They…and by “they” I mean Judge Walker…are quite satisfied engaging in speculation and generalization.
I don’t care if you’re conservative or liberal and I don’t care what your feelings are about gay marriage. This should frighten, agitate and anger you. Judges have second-guessed voters for awhile now, but since when have they so brazenly done it out of dislike for the voters’ personal feelings about things? If that’s the game plan, why bother to vote on anything at all?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Morgan, as a fellow Californian, I can tell you that I’m getting pretty tired of this. It seems to happen every time a controversial measure gets onto the ballot, one that if passed would favor the position associated with conservatives.
It happened with Props 187 and 209 before this. You’ll recall that both of those dealt with the issue of illegal immigration. Both were subsequently gutted by the court system. The people also passed not only Prop 8, but also the one prior to that which also dealt with gay marriage. Did you notice that no one tried to sue to overturn Prop 215, the one that legalized medical cannabis? The conservatives shrugged and went on with their lives. It was Clinton’s DOJ who didn’t want to accept the results.
On a side note, I wish the gun-rights lobby were as well-funded, organized, and persistent as the gay-marriage lobby evidently is. It’s been defeated twice at the ballot box and again at the State Supreme Court level, plus at ballot boxes in 32 other states. Yet it soldiers on. If the gun-rights lobby were this pushy, California would be rid of its “assault weapons” ban by now, and neither would we require a 10-day waiting period to buy some 70-year old rusty bolt-action hunting rifle.
My position has always been that once the people have spoken, that should be “the end of it.” No court appeals, no judges overruling the ballot box, no legislative action to overturn the voters’ will, no proclamations by the governor, nothing. The “ruling” obtained during an election should be as untouchable as one by the SCOTUS, with only the same entity having the power to undo it in either case.
I won’t even get started on the judge’s completely vapid logic, conflict-of-interest, and prejudicial remarks in this particular case.
- cylarz | 08/14/2010 @ 22:09Not being gay, I don’t really care about the ruling itself. But I’m hoping some clever legal mind is taking note of all these issues with Judge Walker’s ruling.
1. A proposition is put on the ballot and the voters approve it, sometimes overwhelmingly;
2. A judge strikes it down because the ivory-tower types don’t like it;
3. Upon review, the judge is overruled and the proposition stands.
If Event #3 can happen just one time, it will have a beneficial effect on putting this into check. This might be the first time it happens. And then, who knows? Maybe the prior rulings you mentioned may be revisited.
The notion of the judicial branch placing a binding check on all other actions, is a convenient gift from the Supreme Court to itself. It stayed that way because it made sense, but it only made sense because the conflict between law and Constitution was objective, firm, strictly antithetical and non-negotiable. And interestingly, it was based on the idea, accepted back then but under everlasting assault now, that the powers granted to Congress within the Constitution were exhaustive — they were not to be permitted to do anything outside of that. Marbury v. Madison, 1803.
Nowadays, the idea is that the conflict need not be objective and irreconcilable. It can be a matter of opinion and it can involve a theoretical overlap, resting on cases that have not yet surfaced. If one may imagine a circumstance in which the Constitution may be bruised, then the law under inspection is “unconstitutional.” This is well outside the logical merits of the Marbury decision.
- mkfreeberg | 08/15/2010 @ 07:55It’s that living constitution thing, emanating and penumbrating like a poorly buried rotting corpse.
- jamzw | 08/15/2010 @ 21:05