Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (115617)	5/23/2005 12:17:17 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793905

Massachusetts justice who wrote gay marriage opinion explains what judges are for: "Our courts function as a pressure valve to defuse political and social tension," Marshall said. "As a nation, we have tacitly agreed that it is better to settle our large differences in the courtroom than in the street." >>Mass. Justice Defends Gay Marriage Ruling The Associated Press Monday, May 23, 2005; 10:12 AM WALTHAM, Mass. -- Judicial independence is vital to our nation, not a "problem to be solved," and leaders should steer away from anti-judicial rhetoric, the chief justice who wrote the decision legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts told graduates. In a commencement speech Sunday at Brandeis University, Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall expressed concern over recent attacks against the judiciary. "Our courts function as a pressure valve to defuse political and social tension," Marshall said. "As a nation, we have tacitly agreed that it is better to settle our large differences in the courtroom than in the street." The court's 4-3 ruling in November 2003 that gays and lesbians have the constitutional right to marry in Massachusetts sparked opposition around the nation. Conservative politicians, including President Bush, blamed "activist judges," including Marshall, who wrote it, for advancing a social agenda. "I worry when people of influence use vague, loaded terms like 'judicial activist' to skew public debate or to intimidate judges," Marshall said. "I worry when judicial independence is seen as a problem to be solved and not a value to be cherished." Marshall referred to court rulings concerning school desegregation and civil rights as proof that an independent judiciary is vital. "Individual rights and human dignity are vulnerable when they depend for protection on the will of the majority or the good faith of those in power," she said. Marshall, who received an honorary degree, told the nearly 1,000 graduates that they must pick a side. "Respect for the rule of law is deeply imbedded in our American experience but it is not embedded in our DNA," she said. "Each of you must decide whether to embrace, to protect the rule of law, or to repudiate it. Make no mistake, inaction and indifference are acts of repudiation." washingtonpost.com Just out of curiosity, do you see how insane her position is? Not just ill-advised, but how it lacks moral coherence, integrity, and a total lack of respect for the rule of law? For hundreds of years, maybe thousands, it's been one of the bed-rock principles of law in our culture that law is not to be judged by the thumb of the judge. I can't find the exact quote, but judges do not make law. Especially not Constitutional law. Yet, this justice not only does it, she says that she's supposed to do it, according to her personal moral creed.

To: Lane3 who wrote (115617)	5/23/2005 12:39:34 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793905

Found the quote I was looking for, Selden and Blackstone on the difference between a court of law and a court of equity. In a court of equity, the chancellor rules according to his conscience, not according to the law, as in a court of law. “For law, we have a measure, and know what to trust to: equity is according to the conscience of him that is chancellor; and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity. 'Tis all one, as if they should make the standard for the measure a chancellor's foot. What an uncertain measure would this be! One chancellor has a long foot, another a short foot, a third an indifferent foot. It is the same thing with the chancellor's conscience." Which is why judges in courts of law are supposed to rule according to law, not to their personal moral creed or personal preferences. It's the job of the people, acting through their legislatures, to make law. Not judges.