Thursday, August 05, 2010

Judicial Arrogance: One Judge Voids More Than 7 Million Voters

" is now clear that it is the courts that threaten our liberty - the liberty to govern ourselves - more profoundly than does any legislature." - Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline," p. 115.

The will of the people to preserve the traditional understanding of marriage has once again been thwarted by an activist judge, a radical ideologue bent on imposing his own agenda on the masses through judicial fabrication. The Homosexual Movement, which is nothing less a moral revolution, asserts that keeping same-sex unions illegal is discriminatory and constitutes a violation of justice since homosexual persons are equally entitled to marriage and its benefits.

The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith refuted this sophism in its 2003 document entitled "Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons":

"Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it." (No. 8).

As I reflect on the arrogance of one judge essentially voiding the will of more than 7 million California voters, the words of Thomas Jefferson to William Jarvis in a September 28, 1820 letter come to mind: "You consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so....and their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots."

Jefferson's sober warning has been largely ignored. And today the American people are plagued with judicial despots, activist judges who are "all the more dangerous" since they are are not subject to elective control.

Judge Vaughn Walker's toppling of Proposition is nothing less than judicial arrogance and abuse of power. He should be impeached.


Paul Anthony Melanson said...

From AFA:

On Wednesday, a judge struck down California's same-sex "marriage" ban as a violation of the civil rights of homosexuals, but a pending appeal of the landmark ruling could prevent same-gender weddings from resuming in the state any time soon.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker overturned the voter-approved ban known as Proposition 8 Wednesday, declaring that limiting marriage to a man and a woman serves no legitimate purpose and is an "artifact" rooted in "unfounded stereotypes and prejudices."

While the ruling affects only California, the appeal will go to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over nine Western states. Walker said he would consider waiting for the Ninth Circuit to render its decision before he makes his opinion final and requires the state to stop enforcing the ban. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Friday on the issue.

Judge should have recused himself
On two separate occasions, voters in The Golden State declared traditional marriage as the law of the state -- once as a state statute and then as a constitutional amendment. Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the American Family Association, calls Walker's decision a tyrannical, abusive, and utterly unconstitutional display of judicial arrogance -- and argues that members of Congress should immediately launch impeachment proceedings against Walker.

"[It's an] absolutely outrageous and unconscionable ruling by this federal judge to so cavalierly overturn the expressed will of seven-million voters in the state of California," Fischer offers. "[He] didn't even have the legal right to consider this case. Marriage policy is not established in the federal constitution. Under the Tenth Amendment that issue is reserved for the states. So this judge trampled the Constitution [and] trampled the will of the voters in California."

In a press release yesterday, AFA identifies Walker as a "practicing homosexual" who, for that reason, should have recused himself from this case "because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity." Fischer concurs.

"It's really no different in our judgment than having a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to issue a ruling on an anti-pornography statute," says the AFA spokesman. "There's a conflict of interest there."

Randy Thomasson of echoes Fischer's comments. "Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual," he notes. "He should have never taken this case for that reason -- and for [another] very important reason: this does not belong in federal court."

As noted by Fischer, Thomasson points out that Article 4 of the Constitution says states are guaranteed a republic form of government -- meaning government by the people, not by the judges. And the Tenth Amendment, he continues, says that whatever is not the exclusive authority of the federal government is up to the states. He believes that leaves jurisdiction over marriage to the states.

The California pro-family leader tells OneNewsNow that Judge Walker has violated his oath of office. "He swore that he would support and defend and be impartially faithful to the written words of the United States Constitution," says Thomasson. Instead, he says Walker has "imposed his biased homosexual agenda" upon the voters, the parents, and the children of California.

Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America (CWA) takes Walker to task for a ruling that negates a state constitutional amendment that more than 52 percent of California voters approved.

Read the rest at OneNewsNow.

Derek said...

Paul, you were so right when you said that the homosexual hate movement is totalitarian. This is a shining example of homosexual intolerance and arrogance. One man attempting to impose his will on millions of voters.

It is a sick abuse of power. This fraud should definitely have recused himself from this case. I agree, he should be impeached. Contact your representatives people. Get rid of this arrogant homosexualist.

Site Meter