Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Bay State SC to Beacon Hill: “You stink - From the LA Times “Massachusetts court admonishes lawmakers over gay marriage”: “Massachusetts' highest court on Wednesday chastised the state's legislators for failing to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but said the court does not have the power to force lawmakers to act.”

Well. Isn’t this a fine mess the Massachusetts Supreme Court has gotten us into? It begs the question: if the Mass. SC knew the legislature would willingly block the right of citizens to petition the government, would they have voted for gay marriage in the first place? Apparently, the answer is to turn out the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature…in Massachusetts. Allegedly there’s another political party here; I think it’s the Whigs.

2 comments:

Rocketeer said...

Massachusetts' highest court said Wednesday it has no authority to force lawmakers to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But it rebuked the Legislature for its "indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties."

Excuse me, but if the court acknowledges that acting on the proposed amendment is one of the legislatures "constitutional duties," but that they have no authority to force the legislature to act, then just what the hell does the SJC have "authority" to do?

Anonymous said...

So I guess the standard is . . .

If a majority of their lordships (the SJC) desire a particular result (gay marriage) they find that they have the power to order the legislature to adopt it . . .

If the remedy sought is compelled by the law but contrary to their lordships' personal preferences, well, gosh, they just don't have the power to compel the legislature to act . . .

This is what we've sunk to.