TAMING JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: Peter Parisi in Washington Times

...What is less clear is whether the Massachusetts citizenry will rise up against a latter-day judicial oligarchy--four members of the state's Supreme Judicial Court--that makes King George III look positively benign by comparison.

Led by state Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall, the robed rogues on a 4-3 vote on Nov. 18 found a heretofore undiscovered right to homosexual "marriage" in the Massachusetts Constitution. ...

...On the federal bench and among most state judiciaries, there are no similar constraints on radical activists like Mrs. Marshall--and as such, no accountability. ...

And therein lies the larger issue at stake--beyond gay "marriage" or even the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, needed since the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act is unlikely to withstand a legal challenge before a U.S. Supreme Court that in June discovered sodomy is a constitutional right. ...

At the federal level, Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee should bring up for hearings and a vote a constitutional amendment that has been around since at least the time of Vermont's Supreme Court
same-sex civil unions ruling in 1999. It would end federal judges' lifetime appointments, making them instead subject to presidential renomination and Senate reconfirmation every 10 years. (Ten years was chosen specifically to outlast a two-term presidency.)

Massachusetts and other states without elected judges would do well to consider following suit with respect to state judges. ...

more
posted by Eve at 5:48 PM | Link |

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home