Newsflash!
The Supreme Court's most liberal justices come out against Roe v. Wade!
It's true! In a recently announced decision regarding the enormous lawsuits that have been brought against Exxon, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens dissented from the majority, decrying "lawmaking" from the Supreme Court bench.
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens supported the $2.5 billion figure for punitive damages, saying Congress has chosen not to impose restrictions in such circumstances.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also dissented, saying the court was engaging in "lawmaking" by concluding that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses.
"The new law made by the court should have been left to Congress," wrote Ginsburg. Justice Stephen Breyer made a similar point, opposing a rigid 1 to 1 ratio of punitive damages to victim compensation.
No doubt this new found disdain for making laws by judicial fiat will lead to a consistent refutation of the ultimate example of making laws from the bench instead of interpreting laws. Since Roe v. Wade is the ultimate example of judicial legislating, I would expect them to reverse their prior stance on abortion.
I commend Justices Stevens and Ginsburg for their upcoming courageous stance to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Showing posts with label legislating from the bench. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislating from the bench. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Why do we bother voting?
The right of Americans to vote is a cherished one, one not always shared by all Americans but through struggle and violence has been extended to every citizens. Some of the greatest stories of American perseverance come from the fights, first for independence for Britain, then for women's suffrage, and finally for voting rights for blacks. But every year that goes by, that struggle becomes more of a mockery as the judiciary takes away those very rights to govern ourselves, to be replaced by a ssmall elite who are progressive and educated enough to tell us how to think.
Today the California Supreme Court has overturned the definition of marriage that existed in California.
In striking down the ban, the court said, "In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
This decision has been predictably hailed by the Left...
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody -- not just in the state of California, but throughout the country -- will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
Well actually what has happened is the California Supreme Court has taken a giant leap to overturn the rule of the people of California by legislating from the bench. The people voted to have marriage defined as being one man and woman, and the legislature has overturned that decision and arbitrarily created a "right" to marriage for homosexuals. This is the exact sort of decision that we saw in Roe V. Wade, where the court made their decision based on the desired outcome and then formed the law to fit their decision, which is exactly what happened in Roe v. Wade. A "right" to have an abortion exists nowhere in the Constitution, just as the "right" for two guys to solemnize their perverse relationship by calling it "marriage" and demanding the same legal and societal rights as married heterosexual couples. Watch for the flood of lawsuits as homosexuals "marry" in California and then go home to their own states and demand recognition of their union.
What we see is an extension of the nanny state, where people cannot be trusted to save for their own retirement, be responsible for bad loans they enter into, certainly cannot be trusted to educate and make decisions for the own children, and are allowed to vote to make them feel part of the process, but when they cross the Left it is perfectly permissible and moral to overturn the voting decisions of knuckle-dragging reactionaries. It is reflective of the disdain towards the unwashed masses held by the elites in the government, judiciary and academy. We are turning into a nation that is no more a democratic republic than Soviet Russia was. We are permitted to vote, but it is really irrelevant because the decisions on policy have already been decided by our betters.
No one should be surprised by this (in the state that banned homeschooling, how dare parents educate their own children!), but also no one should be so apathetic as to shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well". If God found marriage between one man and one woman important enough to specifically command it in the Bible, isn't it important enough for His redeemed people to stand up for and unapologetically say that this is wrong?
Still think it doesn't matter who wins the 2008 presidential election?
(Dr. Albert Mohler, as should be expected, featured this travesty on his radio show today. Very worthwhile listening, Dr. Mohler as always is sober and yet firm in his assessment)
The right of Americans to vote is a cherished one, one not always shared by all Americans but through struggle and violence has been extended to every citizens. Some of the greatest stories of American perseverance come from the fights, first for independence for Britain, then for women's suffrage, and finally for voting rights for blacks. But every year that goes by, that struggle becomes more of a mockery as the judiciary takes away those very rights to govern ourselves, to be replaced by a ssmall elite who are progressive and educated enough to tell us how to think.
Today the California Supreme Court has overturned the definition of marriage that existed in California.
In striking down the ban, the court said, "In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
This decision has been predictably hailed by the Left...
"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody -- not just in the state of California, but throughout the country -- will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.
Well actually what has happened is the California Supreme Court has taken a giant leap to overturn the rule of the people of California by legislating from the bench. The people voted to have marriage defined as being one man and woman, and the legislature has overturned that decision and arbitrarily created a "right" to marriage for homosexuals. This is the exact sort of decision that we saw in Roe V. Wade, where the court made their decision based on the desired outcome and then formed the law to fit their decision, which is exactly what happened in Roe v. Wade. A "right" to have an abortion exists nowhere in the Constitution, just as the "right" for two guys to solemnize their perverse relationship by calling it "marriage" and demanding the same legal and societal rights as married heterosexual couples. Watch for the flood of lawsuits as homosexuals "marry" in California and then go home to their own states and demand recognition of their union.
What we see is an extension of the nanny state, where people cannot be trusted to save for their own retirement, be responsible for bad loans they enter into, certainly cannot be trusted to educate and make decisions for the own children, and are allowed to vote to make them feel part of the process, but when they cross the Left it is perfectly permissible and moral to overturn the voting decisions of knuckle-dragging reactionaries. It is reflective of the disdain towards the unwashed masses held by the elites in the government, judiciary and academy. We are turning into a nation that is no more a democratic republic than Soviet Russia was. We are permitted to vote, but it is really irrelevant because the decisions on policy have already been decided by our betters.
No one should be surprised by this (in the state that banned homeschooling, how dare parents educate their own children!), but also no one should be so apathetic as to shrug our shoulders and say "Oh well". If God found marriage between one man and one woman important enough to specifically command it in the Bible, isn't it important enough for His redeemed people to stand up for and unapologetically say that this is wrong?
Still think it doesn't matter who wins the 2008 presidential election?
(Dr. Albert Mohler, as should be expected, featured this travesty on his radio show today. Very worthwhile listening, Dr. Mohler as always is sober and yet firm in his assessment)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)