The AFA weighs in
Here's what the AFA has to say about the Prop 8 ruling:
Yesterday (August 4), U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker single-handedly overturned California's Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to its state constitution.
In doing so, he frustrated the express will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state's public policy on marriage.
Since marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place.
Under Judge Walker, it's no longer "We the People," it's "I the Judge."
In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.
What can be done?
Fortunately, the Founders provided checks and balances for every branch of government, including the judicial branch. Federal judges hold office only "during good Behaviour," and if they violate that standard can be removed from the bench.
Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.
Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.
Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker.
Take Action and contact your representative and urge him to launch impeachment proceedings against Judge Vaughn Walker for his outrageous ruling against natural marriage.
You've got to be kidding me.
Equal protection and due process are, indeed, clearly defined in the Constitution, and as Judge Walker's thoughtful ruling made exceedingly clear, both are violated by Proposition 8.
If Judge Walker should have recused himself based on his homosexuality (which I'm not sure he has openly stated, but that isn't relevant), then any heterosexual judge would have to do the same. The notion that someone should recuse himself or herself based on sexual orientation would require that we have an asexual federal judge. Perhaps we can find an amoeba somewhere to serve, since they reproduce asexually. (And someone with the intellect of an amoeba might have upheld Prop 8!)
It is fortunate, indeed, that the founders created checks and balances in the Constitution. That's precisely why the federal judiciary can declare bad laws unconstitutional, and enjoin their enforcement. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that citizens can discriminate against other citizens because they are "icky," no matter how large a majority of voters may wish to do so. "Democracy" in our Republic is not permitted to result in the tyranny of the majority.
Since Judge Walker cited ample precedent for every decision in his ruling, the notion of impeachment proceedings is patently absurd. There was no judicial misconduct in his conduct of the trial, or his ruling.
May the AFA enjoy wallowing in its vineyard of sour grapes. It is just such rhetoric and hatred that resulted in this move to the federal courts. I hope the AFA, the Mormon Church, Focus on the Family, and similar organizations enjoy knowing they have accelerated the pace of this change with their actions.
Yesterday (August 4), U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker single-handedly overturned California's Prop. 8, which elevated protection for one-man, one-woman marriage to its state constitution.
In doing so, he frustrated the express will of seven million Californians who went to the polls to shape their state's public policy on marriage.
Since marriage policy is not established anywhere in the federal Constitution, defining marriage, according to the 10th Amendment, is an issue reserved for the states. Judge Walker never should have accepted this case in the first place.
Under Judge Walker, it's no longer "We the People," it's "I the Judge."
In addition, Judge Walker is an open homosexual, and should have recused himself from this case due to his obvious conflict of interest.
What can be done?
Fortunately, the Founders provided checks and balances for every branch of government, including the judicial branch. Federal judges hold office only "during good Behaviour," and if they violate that standard can be removed from the bench.
Judge Walker's ruling is not "good Behaviour." He has exceeded his constitutional authority and engaged in judicial tyranny.
Judges are not, in fact, unaccountable. They are accountable to Congress, which can remove them from office.
Impeachment proceedings, according to the Constitution, begin in the House of Representatives. It's time for you to put your congressman on record regarding the possible impeachment of Judge Walker.
Take Action and contact your representative and urge him to launch impeachment proceedings against Judge Vaughn Walker for his outrageous ruling against natural marriage.
You've got to be kidding me.
Equal protection and due process are, indeed, clearly defined in the Constitution, and as Judge Walker's thoughtful ruling made exceedingly clear, both are violated by Proposition 8.
If Judge Walker should have recused himself based on his homosexuality (which I'm not sure he has openly stated, but that isn't relevant), then any heterosexual judge would have to do the same. The notion that someone should recuse himself or herself based on sexual orientation would require that we have an asexual federal judge. Perhaps we can find an amoeba somewhere to serve, since they reproduce asexually. (And someone with the intellect of an amoeba might have upheld Prop 8!)
It is fortunate, indeed, that the founders created checks and balances in the Constitution. That's precisely why the federal judiciary can declare bad laws unconstitutional, and enjoin their enforcement. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that citizens can discriminate against other citizens because they are "icky," no matter how large a majority of voters may wish to do so. "Democracy" in our Republic is not permitted to result in the tyranny of the majority.
Since Judge Walker cited ample precedent for every decision in his ruling, the notion of impeachment proceedings is patently absurd. There was no judicial misconduct in his conduct of the trial, or his ruling.
May the AFA enjoy wallowing in its vineyard of sour grapes. It is just such rhetoric and hatred that resulted in this move to the federal courts. I hope the AFA, the Mormon Church, Focus on the Family, and similar organizations enjoy knowing they have accelerated the pace of this change with their actions.
Comments
Post a Comment