The Personification of "Judicial Activism"

[DGS49]

Retired Mass. chief justice speaks out about US Supreme Court

The author of the ruling that made same-sex marriage legal in the Commonwealth says she's alarmed by recent comments by Justice Clarence Thomas.

www.yahoo.com

I don't know if the link will work, but this old woman was the author of the horrible Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that TOOK THE ISSUE OF GAY MARRIAGE OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLES' REPRESENTATIVES in Massachusetts. She read into the Massachusetts Constitution a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT that had eluded the entire state - people, legislature, courts - for 200 years, and the did it in such a way that NOTHING COULD BE DONE ABOUT IT. It would take at least three years to modify the MA state constitution to un-do her atrocity, and by that time, thousands of Massachutans (?) and others would have availed themselves of this newly-created "right," entering into marriages which could never be undone, even for those who traveled from out of state to get them.

The EPITOME of Judicial Activism!

And now she mouths off on an outstanding Supreme Court justice who has the temerity to question a similar bad and unjustifiable decision by the USSC.

Parenthetically, what English-speaking planet was she raised on? She has one of the weirdest accents I've ever heard - possibly because she has never lived among actual humans, which is normal for Leftist high court justices.

 

[Moonglow]

How can we be a country who claims to be free and to have equality if people are inhibited from practicing their liberty? Why is it important for yous to attack the person and not the issue?

 

[Polishprince]

How can we be a country who claims to be free and to have equality if people are inhibited from practicing their liberty? Why is it important for yous to attack the person and not the issue?

You don't understand the point. The question isn't whether Gay Marriage is a "good idea" or not , but whether it is required by Massachusetts' 18th Century Constitution.

Everyone can think that Gay Marriage is the greatest invention since sliced bread, but it isn't the role of a court to glorify as such.

 

[Moonglow]

How can we be a country who claims to be free and to have equality if people are inhibited from practicing their liberty? Why is it important for yous to attack the person and not the issue?

You don't understand the point. The question isn't whether Gay Marriage is a "good idea" or not , but whether it is required by Massachusetts' 18th Century Constitution.

Everyone can think that Gay Marriage is the greatest invention since sliced bread, but it isn't the role of a court to glorify as such.

There is no question as to if it is bad since freedom comes with the good and the bad and gay marriage is no threat to society. I myself hate the practice of marriage because it curtails ones freedom. The court merely consented to what is right, the freedom and liberty for gay folks to live in the same fashion as non-gay folks.

 

[Polishprince]

How can we be a country who claims to be free and to have equality if people are inhibited from practicing their liberty? Why is it important for yous to attack the person and not the issue?

You don't understand the point. The question isn't whether Gay Marriage is a "good idea" or not , but whether it is required by Massachusetts' 18th Century Constitution.

Everyone can think that Gay Marriage is the greatest invention since sliced bread, but it isn't the role of a court to glorify as such.

There is no question as to if it is bad since freedom comes with the good and the bad and gay marriage is no threat to society. I myself hate the practice of marriage because it curtails ones freedom. The court merely consented to what is right, the freedom and liberty for gay folks to live in the same fashion as non-gay folks.

It isn't the role of the court to determine what is "right", but instead to determine what is Lawful.

And the Constitution in the determining document, not their feelings about rightness.

 

[mudwhistle]

How can we be a country who claims to be free and to have equality if people are inhibited from practicing their liberty? Why is it important for yous to attack the person and not the issue?

You don't understand the point. The question isn't whether Gay Marriage is a "good idea" or not , but whether it is required by Massachusetts' 18th Century Constitution.

Everyone can think that Gay Marriage is the greatest invention since sliced bread, but it isn't the role of a court to glorify as such.

There is no question as to if it is bad since freedom comes with the good and the bad and gay marriage is no threat to society. I myself hate the practice of marriage because it curtails ones freedom. The court merely consented to what is right, the freedom and liberty for gay folks to live in the same fashion as non-gay folks.

It isn't the role of the court to determine what is "right", but instead to determine what is Lawful.

And the Constitution in the determining document, not their feelings about rightness.

You've got it backwards.
Congress creates laws......the president signs them....the Supreme Court decides if the laws are Constitutional or lawful....and the Department of Justice enforces the law along with the president who is tasked with enforcing the law.

 

[Moonglow]

How can we be a country who claims to be free and to have equality if people are inhibited from practicing their liberty? Why is it important for yous to attack the person and not the issue?

You don't understand the point. The question isn't whether Gay Marriage is a "good idea" or not , but whether it is required by Massachusetts' 18th Century Constitution.

Everyone can think that Gay Marriage is the greatest invention since sliced bread, but it isn't the role of a court to glorify as such.

There is no question as to if it is bad since freedom comes with the good and the bad and gay marriage is no threat to society. I myself hate the practice of marriage because it curtails ones freedom. The court merely consented to what is right, the freedom and liberty for gay folks to live in the same fashion as non-gay folks.

It isn't the role of the court to determine what is "right", but instead to determine what is Lawful.

And the Constitution in the determining document, not their feelings about rightness.

And they found that LGBT have the lawful ability to marriage just like the rest of the US.

 

[Missourian]

How can we be a country who claims to be free and to have equality if people are inhibited from practicing their liberty?

Tell me about your support for Obamacare and the individual mandate...

 

[JLW]

Once Barrett is confirmed you will seee conservative judicial activism is all its glory as precedent after precedent is overturned.