As having sat on a jury once before in a criminal case, I can see where it would be difficult to remain objective in all cases as a judge because at certain times there would arise a case in which the subject matter is personal. This shouldn't ever be a problem though because a judge or juror that comes into this situation is allowed to recuse his or herself.
The issue seems to be that many judges nowadays are using their authority to promote their subjective views and biases. For example, California Federal Judge Walker decided to overturn the vote of the people to declare marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Even though the judge is a practicing homosexual, and therefore, would personally benefit from this decision, he chose not to recuse himself.
Besides the obvious problems with the decision, it also undermines the power given to the people through the process of voting. What is the point of spending two hours in line to vote on propositions and amendments if the collective decision of the people will be ignored?
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comments:
You know, funny thing.
You seem to believe that same-sex marriage will cheapen the concept of marriage. So, by that logic, shouldn't a straight, married judge also recuse himself from this case? I mean, really, only a eunuch could rule, according to your logic. (Or perhaps a transsexual - I'm really not clear on what your argument is here, to be honest...)
Besides the obvious problems with the decision, it also undermines the power given to the people through the process of voting.
Almost 50 years ago, the California Legislature passed the Rumford Fair Housing Act, which banned discrimination against "colored" renters or buyers. About 2/3 of California voters overturned the Rumford Act when they passed Proposition 14, which, like Proposition 8, amended the California Constitution, this time to say that Californians could refuse to sell or rent to anyone for any reason. Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 14 violated the 14th Amendment, and it didn’t matter if 100% of Californians had voted for it -- it was discrimination, and unconstitutional.
So, really, I'm not feeling your argument.
Post a Comment