If you have something to say, post a comment. I will not respond to anonymous commenters, so if you care to joust with the GROUCH, open yourself a FREE GMAIL account and get yourself an ID so I'll know who you are.

If you'd like to be a guest contributor, email me at:
Opinions of the guests are not necessarily the opinion of the GROUCH!

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Something is Wrong with Gubment by the People

When a single judge can overturn the wishes of 7,000,000 voters, something is wrong, but this is exactly what happened in California. A single judge struck down the same sex marriage ban, declaring it unconstitutional. I am still scratching my head trying to figure out exactly which section of the constitution this violates, please fill me in.

I am really thinking that the time has come to figure out a way to defang these liberal minded activist judges, but I'm not sure what it would be. Right now if one of them declares a law unconstitutional, and it is upheld by the Supreme Court, then the only only recourse is to amend the constitution........a necessarily long and arduous process. On the other hand I would be in favor of an amendment severely limiting the power of judges and perhaps even abolishing lifetime appointments.

On the other hand, if by referendum, a majority of voters voted to pass a law in OBVIOUS direct violation of the constitution...............say abolition of the second amendment for instance, what then? Of course some liberal judge would agree, but we would hope that the high court would rightly strike down such a law over the apparent will of the people, but if the courts have been defanged, then could they correct a legitimate challenge to the constitution?

I am in a quandry. I want to protect the constitution. I just don't want liberals having the power to interpret it. They are probably saying the same thing about me.

Somehow, it just seems to me that there are areas where judges just need get lost and leave decisions to the people. The gay marriage ban is one of them..........and it happened in California of all places!

Any ideas?


  1. In the case of California, the judge himself was gay. Seems to me this might have been a conflict that should have excluded him on the case???

    Right Truth

  2. Yeah, Toots. I wondered about that too.