quote:

With today’s decision on marriage by the Ninth Circuit, and the likely appeal to the Supreme Court, more and more Americans are being exposed to the radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States.

I was drawn back into public life by the Ninth Circuit’s 2002 decision that held that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional. Today’s decision is one more example that the American people cannot rest until we restore the proper rule of the judicial branch and bring judges and the Courts back under the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States begins with “We the People”; it does not begin with “We the Judges”. Federal judges need to take heed of that fact.

Federal judges are substituting their own political views for the constitutional right of the people to make judgments about the definition of marriage.

The country has been here before. In 1856, the Supreme Court thought it could settle the issue of slavery once and for all and impose a judicial solution on the country. In 1973, the issue was abortion and once again a Supreme Court thought that it could impose a judicial solution on the country once and for all.

Judicial solutions don’t solve contentious social issues once and for all.

Should the Supreme Court fail to heed the disastrous lessons of its own history and attempt to impose its will on the marriage debate in this country by affirming today’s Ninth Circuit decision, it will bear the burden of igniting a constitutional crisis of the first order.

The political branches of the federal government, as well as the political branches of the several States, will surely not passively accept the dictates of the federal judiciary on this issue. An interventionist approach by the Court on marriage will lead to a crisis of legitimacy for the federal judiciary from which it may take generations to recover

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:


Federal judges are substituting their own political views for the constitutional right of the people to make judgments about the definition of marriage.

Should the Supreme Court fail to heed the disastrous lessons of its own history and attempt to impose its will on the marriage debate in this country by affirming today’s Ninth Circuit decision, it will bear the burden of igniting a constitutional crisis of the first order.

The political branches of the federal government, as well as the political branches of the several States, will surely not passively accept the dictates of the federal judiciary on this issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

WTF?  Is Newt coming out pro-slavery?

The blathering idiot's arguments here can be summed up in two contradictory sentences:

1. Judicial decisions are the wrong way to resolve contentious social issues.
2. The judges rulings on contentious social issues need to agree with the conservative agenda, whereupon they will be the right way to resolve contentious social issues.

quote:

Who needs checks and balances when you're a clinically insane madman bent on world domination?

quote:


Newt: "Federal judges are substituting their own political views for the constitutional right of the people to make judgments about the definition of marriage."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
The federal branches will more readily accept SCOTUS directives more so than the states, the issue being a 10th Amendment one.

quote:


The courts were never designed to set policy but to address issues according to the Constitution, not the Constitution as interpreted by the judges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:


Federal judges are substituting their own political views for the constitutional right of the people to make judgments about the definition of marriage.

Should the Supreme Court fail to heed the disastrous lessons of its own history and attempt to impose its will on the marriage debate in this country by affirming today’s Ninth Circuit decision, it will bear the burden of igniting a constitutional crisis of the first order.

The political branches of the federal government, as well as the political branches of the several States, will surely not passively accept the dictates of the federal judiciary on this issue.

The federal branches will more readily accept SCOTUS directives more so than the states, the issue being a 10th Amendment one. The courts were never designed to set policy but to address issues according to the Constitution, not the Constitution as interpreted by the judges.

When one gains power to interpret, whatever the interpretation becomes so; subject to reinterpretation according to whim. This is what is known as judicial activism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Newt made this statement after the 9th Court of Appeals ruled on same sex marriage...

quote:

With today’s decision on marriage by the Ninth Circuit, and the likely appeal to the Supreme Court, more and more Americans are being exposed to the radical overreach of federal judges and their continued assault on the Judeo-Christian foundations of the United States.

I was drawn back into public life by the Ninth Circuit’s 2002 decision that held that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional. Today’s decision is one more example that the American people cannot rest until we restore the proper rule of the judicial branch and bring judges and the Courts back under the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States begins with “We the People”; it does not begin with “We the Judges”. Federal judges need to take heed of that fact.

Federal judges are substituting their own political views for the constitutional right of the people to make judgments about the definition of marriage.

The country has been here before. In 1856, the Supreme Court thought it could settle the issue of slavery once and for all and impose a judicial solution on the country. In 1973, the issue was abortion and once again a Supreme Court thought that it could impose a judicial solution on the country once and for all.

Judicial solutions don’t solve contentious social issues once and for all.

Should the Supreme Court fail to heed the disastrous lessons of its own history and attempt to impose its will on the marriage debate in this country by affirming today’s Ninth Circuit decision, it will bear the burden of igniting a constitutional crisis of the first order.

The political branches of the federal government, as well as the political branches of the several States, will surely not passively accept the dictates of the federal judiciary on this issue. An interventionist approach by the Court on marriage will lead to a crisis of legitimacy for the federal judiciary from which it may take generations to recover

How is denying someone their legal right, as in the Scott case, the same as denying man-woman marriage their exclusive rights to the term "marriage" under the law?

http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf

In that he speaks about abolishing both judges and whole courts if their rulings do not fall within the "appropriate" understanding of the Constitution.

Is this really what we want happening in our courts? Im not always happy with their decisions, but we do have a system in place for dealing with those, including amendments. Do we want the courts held hostage to the political parties of each administration, regardless of which administration it is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Im not always happy with their decisions, but we do have a system in place for dealing with those, including amendments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

However, your sour grapes over this issue is telling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

However, your sour grapes over this issue is telling.

Sour grapes? I was one of those in the minority who voted "no" on 8, Tazzy. I also voted against the previous referendum on banning gay marriage in California, which led to a state court allowing it anyway, which led to the Constitutional amendment now in the legal process. Please explain how that fits into, "sour grapes."

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

However, your sour grapes over this issue is telling.

Sour grapes? I was one of those in the minority who voted "no" on 8, Tazzy. I also voted against the previous referendum on banning gay marriage in California, which led to a state court allowing it anyway, which led to the Constitutional amendment now in the legal process. Please explain how that fits into, "sour grapes."

Then why are you here complaining about the amendment?

Honestly, do you simply just want to fight? It seems you are constantly pushing for one with me lately.

Regardless, States can pass any law, or amendment, they want. They will still be held up to Constitutional scrutiny.

This one has failed so far. IF the SCOTUS decides to hear an appeal, the decision should be interesting in light of DOMA.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

That is what so many others do not like about me.