Judicial activism has struck again, and not in very bright way. A San Francisco County Superior Court Judge has ruled that any California state law that restrict marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional.
But, if the statements attributed to the judge are any indication of the entire decision, then it’s going to get ugly in California very quickly.
In his 27-page decision, Kramer – an appointee of former Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican – said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates “the basic human right to marry the person of one’s choice,” and has no rational justification.
Two things.
First, is it wise for a judge to call everyone who argued the losing side of this case irrational? There are certainly rational reasons to argue for traditional marriage. The judge may not agree with them but that doesn’t mean they’re not rational. What this judge appears to have said in his decision is that the California Attorney General brought nonsense arguments before his court. If that’s true, then the Attorney General needs to be censured, at least. No state should have an Attorney General who brings irrational arguments to a Superior Court Judge.
Perhaps it is that the irrational arguments weren’t actually irrational. If so, then the judge spoke very rashly and ought to be censured himself for putting such a foolish statement into an official court decision. Either way, some action ought to happen here.
Second, the judge has just opened a great big can of worms. By ruling that the ability to “marry the person of one’s choice” is a “basic human right”, the judge has just legalized bigamy, polygamy and incest. Did he consider that before making his lofty statement? I seriously doubt it.
My guess is that this decision isn’t going to make it past the State Supreme Court, especially if this judge’s decision is as shabby as ths article indicates.
(via Wizbang and Rusty Shackleford)
Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors
Some time in the next couple of hours my Jawa will have been petted by at least 1 million visitors. Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta! Thanks all for the constant barage of referrals, positive feedback, and…
Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors
Some time in the next couple of hours my Jawa will have been petted by at least 1 million visitors. Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta! Thanks all for the constant barage of referrals, positive feedback, and…
Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors
Some time in the next couple of hours my Jawa will have been petted by at least 1 million visitors. Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta! Thanks all for the constant barage of referrals, positive feedback, and…
Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors
Some time in the next couple of hours my Jawa will have been petted by at least 1 million visitors. Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta! Thanks all for the constant barage of referrals, positive feedback, and…
Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors
Some time in the next couple of hours my Jawa will have been petted by at least 1 million visitors. Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta! Thanks all for the constant barage of referrals, positive feedback, and…
Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors
Some time in the next couple of hours my Jawa will have been petted by at least 1 million visitors. Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta! Thanks all for the constant barage of referrals, positive feedback, and…
Jawa Report Celebrates One Million Visitors
Some time in the next couple of hours my Jawa will have been petted by at least 1 million visitors. Damn, it feels good to be a gangsta! Thanks all for the constant barage of referrals, positive feedback, and…
Rational justification is in fact a measure of legality, and is often argued in the courts. By declaring a law not rationally justified, the judge is not taking a swipe at one side of the case, but is in fact interpreting the law, as is his job. Get a clue about our legal system before you spout off about those mean judges calling people irrational.
Mantis is correct. Here’s a quick explanation of rational basis test (and other levels of scrutiny) to determine whether a classification violates equal protection:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/facult.....rutiny.htm
While Mantis and AGR are technically correct in that rational-basis scrutiny is a legal term of art for a standard of review, it’s also one that, of late, the courts have been pushing the envelope on. It’s supposed to be the LOWEST standard of review, one where legislation is presumed constitutional and where those challenging it bear a heavy burden of proof to show not that the legislators acted based on an irrational or arbitrary basis, but that there was no rational basis on which they could have CONCEIVABLY acted, even if it wasn’t their actual motive.
California’s state appellate courts, unlike the federal Ninth Circuit based there, tend to be fairly sensible, so I’d expect this to be reversed by the court of appeal before it even reaches the state supreme court, which it no doubt will sooner rather than later.
The trial judge is deliberately using sweeping language, presumably from the plaintiff’s motion papers, to at least imply that this is a matter of federal as well as state law, but I don’t see the US Supreme Court granting cert here. There isn’t enough of an actual conflict (yet) over the interpretation of federal law for them to get involved at this point.