Judge Joseph Bataillon Joins Judicial Dictatorship
Clinton appointee U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon has joined his activist judicial brethren by striking down the law against gay marriage, passed by Nebraska voters. Bataillon found a portion of the law, which stated a ban on civil unions, unconstitutional. Bataillon said that the ban on gay marriage “imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs’ right to petition or to participate in the political process.” Note: I have no idea how the ban on gay marriage, as Judge Bataillon stated, “creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs’ right to petition or to participate in the political process”. One has to be married to have a right to petition and participate in the political process? Is he saying that single people no longer have any rights? That doesn’t make any sense. When he wrote his ‘ruling’ was Judge Bataillon smoking some funny cigarette?
However, instead of simply striking down the portion of the voted on legislation that also bans the aforementioned civil unions, Judge Bataillon apparently decided to impose his own belief system by dismissing the law in its entirety. In a column I wrote last July, I predicted that any Defense of Marriage laws would be overturned and thrown out by activist judges. Unfortunately, it looks like I was right.
Judge Bataillon has now proudly united himself with the California and Florida Supreme Courts and the Ninth Circuit Court, amongst others, which consistently vote down the laws passed by voters; if these laws do not correspond to the judges’ personal desires. Although there is nothing ‘unconstitutional’ about a ban on gay marriage, growing groups of activist judges are regularly, with their decisions, rewriting state constitutions and the US Constitution.
The question “How does the minority Democrat Party remain in power and wield that power over the majority Republican Party?” has been firmly and unequivocally answered. All that needs to be effected is to use their Dem-appointed judges to impose its will and ideologies on US citizens. Note: This is why it is vital that Originalist judges are appointed to appellate and SCOTUS positions, instead of Activist judges.
Currently, the United States is locked in a battle of Socialism (the Marxist interim step before Communism) vs. Democracy. In 2004, the United States’ electorate voted for Democracy. But, the Dem appointed liberal and leftist activist judicial system is working overtime to ensure that the will of the people is blocked; each and every time these activist judges don’t agree with the decisions citizens make. As the liberal and leftist Dems continue to spew their phrase “every vote counts”, what they really mean is “every vote counts as long as you agree with us”. We already know what happens if the Dems do not agree with the voters. Whenever possible, they simply have their in-pocket judges throw out our decisions…and our votes. Is this any way to run a country? Sure it is. But, only if that country is ruled by a dictatorship. Unless we the people throw off our cloaks of complacency and rise up to firmly tell our elected officials to stop this headlong plunge into tyranny, this is what we will very soon be forced to endure.
21 Comments:
Another judicial traitor to the US joins the ranks of his Commie brothers and sisters.
Proud Texas
The Dems and their judges and ACLU have already drawn their lines in the sand against the American people. This is just another example. If we can't do anything to stop them from usurping our rights as citizens, another civil war will be unavoidable. Maybe that's what they want. If they ever get back into power, they can declare Martial law against us!
Leftist judges and the ACLU continue to say that gay marriage is protected by the Constitution. IT'S NOT! They also push their own secular religion that they say is acceptable and are working hard to outlaw Christianity. Wake up people! If you can't see they're working to end this country you're blind!!!
Minnesota Mom
If by ending the country you mean 'get it through some peoples thick skulls that, historically, this conutry was founded on British common Law by Agnostics and athiests' as opposed to'blindly following the edicts of some mythical grandfather in the sky wagging his finger at me', than more power to it.
I'm beginning to wonder why some of these judges aren't impeached. Their actions are clearly in violation of their office. An impeachment for such malfeasance would be consistent with historical prescident.
Bob
http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/
Cedric, your concocted revisionist history won't work here or on any other site where people have the ability to think.
Jeff
Cedric is either trying to intentionally mislead or is a product of leftist public school indoctrination. The Declaration of Independence and virtually all of the letters and documents written by the founders of the US not only refer strongly to the Creator (IE "God" for Cedic) but, most were Christian. Maybe he wasn't exposed to the truth in school or within his family.
Annie
Bob:
You're right. But, the activist judges seem to be able to get away with anything they want!
Proud Texas
Marriage is both a religious and a federal institution. Marriage confers important property, tax, and power of attorney rights that are wholly separate from the sober religious commitment that is the Rite of Marriage. To be fair, No-fault Divorce law has done far more to undermine the institution of Marriage in this country, and yet this was legislated without much outcry. American citizens have, as a constitutional guarantee, the right to equal access and equal protections of government as provided by the Constitution. The Judiciary, which is the envy of the rest of the world, executed its responsibility properly.
Just think of all the History Book that have to changed now,,, It likes it's time we took out the phrase:
BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE, OF THE PEOPLE......
And relpace it with:
BY THE JUDGES, FOR THE JUDGES, OF THE JUDGES.....
I beg to differ that "The Judiciary, which is the envy of the rest of the world, executed its responsibility properly." They did and do not...not anymore. An attorney had this to say of the Bataillon decision:
Attorney Brian Fahling of the Center for Law & Policy minces no words in his reaction to the Nebraska judge's words. "Not only is Judge Bataillon's assertion [that the amendment demonstrates animus toward homosexuals] demonstrably wrong, it is saturated with an all-too-familiar judicial contempt and antipathy for the moral norms of our culture," he says.
"We are no longer permitted to govern ourselves in the most fundamental areas of life. Instead, we are called names by un-elected judges who deconstruct our written constitution and our society with all the subtlety of a wrecking ball."
Minnesota Mom
The Judiciary is charged with interpreting and applying the directives set out in our Fedral Constitution. It is also sensitive to social, ethical, and moral priorities, but in order for the Judiciary to execute its office responsibly it must do so objectively and dispassionately. This means that if a cultural majority wants legislation that would impinge on the Constitutional guarantees of an unpopular minority without due process or cause, the Judiciary should rule to uphold those guarantees even if the ruling is unpopular. When a Justice makes a ruling that we do not want, this fact alone does not constitute an impeachable offense if the Justice is acting in good faith in interpreting and applying the law of the U.S. Constitution and all applicable precendents. The Judiciary executed its responsibility properly, even though the issue is contentious to the social majority.
This has little-to-nothing to do with the minority vs. majority. There is no allusion to or protections given in any constitution (state or US) for same-sex marriage. The liberal and activist MA Supreme Court even went so far as to state (in their ruling for gay marriage and in opposition to MA voters) that the intention of our founders was to "provide for and protect same-sex marriage". This is, of course, insane. These activist judges are legislating from the bench and no responsible judicial rulings [by them] are being rendered.
"There is no allusion to or protections given in any constitution (state or US) for same-sex marriage."
This is quite true. There are no constitutional guarantees of any kind for same-sex marriage. However, marriage is both a religious and a federal/state (statutory) institution. Marriage confers important property, tax, and power of attorney rights that are wholly separate from the sober religious commitment that is the Rite of Marriage. The issue is not whether the state may withhold a practice which is itself not guaranteed, but rather ...
The issue is whether the State may deny Constitutionally guaranteed equal protection and equal access to the property, tax, and power of attorney rights that automatically comprise the statutory institution of marriage. The essence of Bataillon's ruling is focused upon this point (see text of ruling), which is adequate justification that he executed his office responsibly.
Then, 'civil-unions' should cover it for gays. Marriage is for straight (IE heterosexual) couples.
Do any of you have an education beyond the eighth grade? It's real simple: it doesn't matter that it is a constitutional amendment--if it violates the federal constitution, it is unconstitutional. You cannot re-write the federal constitution in your own state by passing a corollary state amendment; its a little provision in the federal constitution called the supremacy clause. Do your homework...they teach that in HS, but evidently known of you made it that far.
Actually, many of us are college graduates and most of us know how to use "none" as opposed to "known". The US Constitution neither protects same-sex marriage, nor is same-sex marriage applicable to Amendment XIV's "due process clause".
Apparently, your own high school education is/was sorely lacking. Leftist indoctrinators (AKA "teachers"), I suspect.
People at the furthest political polls of both sides commonly react to contention by spewing invectives. Such ad hominem sparring is a common feature of human behavior but it rarely, if ever, does anything to advance a discussion cogently.
Me ... I'd rather stick to an objective and dispassionate evaluation of facts of evidentiary value.
And a few of the "objective facts" are in the post above yours...
For the Post before, LOL. (Known* or None*?) You may be eduma- cated,, but did you take English? This gay stuff gay marriage and all! all against the Laws of the Land AND the Laws of God,which should leave no' debate"!. IT IS WRONG! when God destroyed sodom and Gomorah, he destroyed it because "judges" had passed laws! of things such as homosexuality and immoralities! the city near them " Zoar" was Not destroyed! well,because Zoar had no " judges'! So when America(hopefully we won't) starts passing these sodom and Gomorah laws, Look out! God is no respector of persons! or (Nations).
You can't change a portion of an amendment. If any part of the amendment is unconstitutional, the entire thing must be re-done. Insert foot in mouth...now. Hopefully you can all get to sleep tonight and shut out the thoughts of all those "evil gay people" getting married. Good luck.
Post a Comment
<< Home