Logo
Thursday, February 23, 2012
the Ninth Circuit Court… Gawd save us!!
from The Rooster

This week the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco ruled against a provision of the California Constitution, which banned Gay folks from Marriage.  When that law was a baby it was called Proposition 8.   Mind you this law did not condemn Gays, it did not say they were disenfranchised from the vote, or any such thing. It simply said “Marriage” is reserved for people of the opposite sex.   It did not prohibit gays from establishing, as they had, another form of legal union.   It simply recognized history, that marriage was developed as a concept for the union of opposite sexes, to make a family.  The two judges who voted to  invalidate this law,  violated their oath of office and should be disbarred.
            The reason I quit the law business, after some 34 years, was just this. So many men and women have taken the oath to be a Judge and then ignore their oath  and  do as they feel.  Let’s not forget that the California Judge, who ruled proposition 8  was unconstitutional was himself gay, and retired right after making his opinion. His conflict was so obvious it must have weighed heavily on his mind.    Ignoring the law was not the way we did business,  when I started back in the 60s,  but that is the way it ended up. Especially in California, and more especially in the 9th Circus Court.   Ruling on feelings destroys the concept that we live under laws and must obey laws. It is part of anarchy.
            The Oath each of these judges took is as follows:
                        “I …Stephen Reinhardt (the judge who wrote the opinion) …_do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as judge under the constitution and laws of the United States. “  
            Simply stated, when looking at the law, a judge should apply the law without feelings and partiality.  He or she must do this recognizing the laws of California are part of the laws of the United States.   Now these two judges applied their feelings and were partial. Exactly what they swore not to do.
Here is what they said which are their personal feelings and violated the “respect to persons”  part of the oath.  Remember they did not act as trial judges.
            1- “Proposition 8 serves no purpose…”   That is their opinion. Not law.
            2- “…has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and  lesbians..”    That is their opinion.  Others disagree and is not law.
            3- “…officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples…”    That is their opinion. Not law and others disagree.
             The part of the US Constitution these two appelate judges used is the much abused 14th amendment. This amendments original purpose was to do nothing more than to prevent States from denying citizens rights the Federal Constitution and laws guaranteed.   In the final part of the 14th’s first provision, it says.’
             “ …nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”   
 
            Most Civil rights rulings have used this provision as if it stood alone as brand new law.   It does not and did not.   The problem is that the Federal law is not equal and there is no mandate that it be equal.   I rest my case on the graduated Income tax, affirmative action laws, and subsidies for this person and company as congress sees fit.   All the 14th was doing was nailing down the cure for Slavery, just as the 13th did and as the 15th did.   It took three amendments to get it right.
            So for these judges to rule, on their opinions, and to apply equality when the US Constitution does not require it, is like their saying they do not like bathrooms because they smell, and especially that any law allowing them should be un-constitutional because they do not treat the sexes equally.   At its best their action is legislative, not judicial. At its worst, they ignore their oath, and for that reason I say they should be impeached as a warning to others, not to stray from what they swear to do.
Posted at 13:42 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)


Comments View Comments   
No Comments Found.

Login Login
Email Address* :
Password* :

New Registration Forgot Password?
Categories Categories
Al Fonzi
Andy Caldwell
Ashly Donavan
Bill Glynn
Dan Logue
Darin Selnick
Dr. George Watson
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.
Dr. Mike Tabor
Dr. Wendy James
Gary Beckner
Gordon Mullin
Gretchen Hamel
Harris Sherline
Janet Cronick
Jerry Scheidbach
Joe Armendariz
Judson Phillips
Lowell Ponte
Matt Barber
Matt Kokkonen
Mike Brown
Mike Gorbell
Mike Stoker
Phil Kiver
Richard Cochrane
Richard Fryer
Richard S. Quandt
Robert Jeffers
Robyn Hayhurst
Roger Hedgecock
Rooster Bradford
Santa Barbara City Watch
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.
RSS Feed RSS Feed
Top 10 Recent BlogRSS Feed
Al FonziRSS Feed
Andy CaldwellRSS Feed
Ashly DonavanRSS Feed
Bill GlynnRSS Feed
Dan LogueRSS Feed
Darin SelnickRSS Feed
Dr. George WatsonRSS Feed
Dr. Jane Orient, M.D.RSS Feed
Dr. Mike TaborRSS Feed
Dr. Wendy JamesRSS Feed
Gary BecknerRSS Feed
Gordon MullinRSS Feed
Gretchen HamelRSS Feed
Harris SherlineRSS Feed
Janet CronickRSS Feed
Jerry Scheidbach RSS Feed
Joe ArmendarizRSS Feed
Judson PhillipsRSS Feed
Lowell PonteRSS Feed
Matt BarberRSS Feed
Matt KokkonenRSS Feed
Mike BrownRSS Feed
Mike GorbellRSS Feed
Mike StokerRSS Feed
Phil KiverRSS Feed
Richard CochraneRSS Feed
Richard FryerRSS Feed
Richard S. QuandtRSS Feed
Robert JeffersRSS Feed
Robyn HayhurstRSS Feed
Roger HedgecockRSS Feed
Rooster BradfordRSS Feed
Santa Barbara City WatchRSS Feed
Stephen Wallace, M.S. Ed.RSS Feed
Archives Archives
Skip Navigation Links.
Tag Cloud Tag Cloud                      
Validator Validator
XHTML | CSS