Link here
UPDATE (by David): You can read the entire decision at this link.
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
There is no other reason for that ruling. Ernie Boch, III is not related to Ernie Boch, Jr. however he does hope to be in his will.
Justice for Tookie
That's an interesting take since scores of high court cases have clearly established marriage as a fundmantal protected right.
I agree with most of you all, though...it's time for the legislature to step up and get rid of this antiquated law.
2. What political clout this could have for BOTH Romney and Reilly! As Governor, Romney lauds this and uses it to garner more support from right wing social conservatives. If the legislature tries to repeal it, he can veto, thus showing people how morally opposed he is to gay marriage (vomit).
Reilly, on the other hand, could appease the GLBT community by pledging that if he is elected governor he would ensure that this statute is repealed, and the FUNDAMENTAL right to marry is fully protected in Massachusetts. He'd probably get some good national press too (since this decision has made it all over the national news already). If he's politically smart (which is suspect, at best) he will absolutely use this to his advantage, something Romney already has begun doing. “We remain imprisoned by the past as long as we deny its influence in the present.� -Justice William J. Brennan
Other states, and the federal Constitution, though, do not bar this. The closest the federal Constitution comes is guaranteeing due process for all.
So it makes a certain amount of sense to make the decision the way they did. Personally, I disagree -- I think we should be guaranteeing the rights of all as long as they are on MA soil -- but there it is. -- If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat. —Harry Truman
If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat.
Every part of government has had a role -- the SJC, Romney, Reilly, and the legislature.
Nothing we can do about it. The best remedy is definitley legislative intervention. I really wouldn't like to see this go up to the SCOTUS. “We remain imprisoned by the past as long as we deny its influence in the present.� -Justice William J. Brennan
Or put another way, the role of the courts is as interpreters of the law, and the role of the Supreme Court is as the highest and final interpreter of the law. But "the law" does not consist only of bills passed by the legislature; the Constitution is law also, and is in fact a higher law, by design setting out general principles rather than specific details, and though not immutable still very difficult to change. So how is it not proper to the courts' role as interpreters of law, to rule on when and whether the everyday law of the legislature conflicts with the higher law of the Constitution? Something there is that doesn't love a wall, That wants it down.
As for the history, many of the framers of the Constitution (Hamilton, for one) accepted the idea of judicial review and it was in 1803, not in "the late 19th century", that the Court first voided a federal law in Marbury v. Madison. There have really been two classes of opponents of judicial review in American history: people who philosophically oppose it, and people who dislike the particular direction that courts are taking (some liberals may feel this way today).
You ask for a system in which all the branches "interpret the Constitution and act accordingly within their proper Department." Such a system, in your view, would help each branch "check and balance the other". But how, if the Court couldn't declare laws unconstitutional, would such checks and balances work? As Hamilton pointed out, the Court has neither the power of "the sword or the purse". It can't cut the budget of Congress or the President or order high-ranking officials arrested; the power that the Court has lies in its accepted authority to interpret the Constitution. Such a power helped desegregate schools, change redistricting, and resolve the Watergate crisis.
You ask which system has a better historical record, but the choice (as I mentioned earlier) is not between "elected democracy" and "unelected oligarchy". I actually prefer neither; I prefer what we have right now: a democratic Republic with a body at least somewhat insulated from popular opinion that can protect the rights of unpopular minorities.
I know I have strayed from the subject of the post, but I believe very strongly that judicial review is an important force in our society and that the idea that courts are somehow illegitimate is a damaging one.
And in all that time, nobody's come up with a Constitutional Amendment that would withdraw the power of judicial review. -- If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat. —Harry Truman
This is a plausible interpretation of Marbury, though my own view is that it is not entirely convincing. But it's a complicated question - as Marbury itself is a very complicated opinion.
Bob is quite right, however, that judicial review in its present-day form did not resurface until the mid-19th century. From Marbury until then, not a single act of Congress was declared unconstitutional.
Also, I was mistaken, Reilly cannot gain from this because he was the one arguing that the law was constitutional (I wasn't fully aware of that, guess I should have read more). Woops...Gubernatorial candidate Reilly has all but sealed his fate with the GLBT community. “We remain imprisoned by the past as long as we deny its influence in the present.� -Justice William J. Brennan
