Quick Analysis From A New Jersey Lawyer/Prosecutor

A friend I won't identify (as I just outed his credentials) writes:

More options 4:25 pm (15 minutes ago) Did you see the ruling today on gay marriage? Here's the deal, same-sex couples must have all of the same rights (7-0) though the statutory scheme that provides it doesn't necessarily have to be called "marriage" (4-3).

Want to hazard a guess whether the four who wouldn't judicially impose actual gay "marriage" have lifetime (until 70) tenure? That's right, in NJ you get appointed and confirmed, and then seven years later you have to get re-appointed and re-confirmed. By my calculation, none of the four have. Of the three who wanted to judicially impose marriage, one, the CJ, retires today, another was just confirmed as the CJ and will reach 70 before the 7 years is over and the third has lifetime tenure.

I really could give a rat's ass about gay marriage. Personally, I see no reason not to allow it. I mean, shouldn't gay people have the right to be as miserable as other married people. Shouldn't they fear losing 50%+ of everything they have for, you know, scratching an itch? I say, be careful what you ask for, because once the divorce sharks get you, you're going to wish you never asked for such a "right."

What is aggravating, however, is the Court's clear disregard for the state creation and recognition of institutions between people. If the state legislature can't define marriage (as it obviously can't to the satisfaction of the Court), should it have to recognize any marriage (even common-law marriages which NJ does not). I guess I'm sick of judicial activism cloaked in the guise of equal protection or the so-called liberty interest, and the blatant opportunism of all things judicial. I'm also sick of the fact that the only consistent judicial approach seems to be hypocrisy. This court finds a fundamental liberty interest in a union similar to marriage, but said the Boy Scouts (clearly [an anti-] gay organization) couldn't exclude gays or decide who would qualify to be in their association. This Court also repeatedly denies due process to drunks and petty drug users, but has refused to allow the execution of some admitted stone cold killers.

This Court says a private mall has to allow protesters on its property, but would allow me to be terminated for using the word cunt at the office? This Court allows Children wear just about anything at school, unless it offends Muslims or gays, in which case it punishes schools for creating hostile environments. I'm really getting sick of bad reasoning, hack lawyers, and hack legislators who are willing to allow the judiciary to rule from the bench and merely rail against the rulings (to raise funds) without answering with legislation because they are afraid to take a stand.

This gets at me: Do we live in a democracy or not?

Apparently not.

An undemocratic branch of government, without direct and true accountability to the people they are now de facto governing, shall have the right to set any and all pubic policy.

But there's still room for We, The People to play our part, too.

We get to choose a name for the policy decided for us by our judicial betters.

That's something, right? It's not as if they're taking all democratic power from the people. We get to pick out names and stuff.

Like children. Which we increasingly are, thanks to the paternalistic, infantilizing, power-grabbing courts.

posted by Ace at 04:44 PM

| Access Comments