The Stranger has learned that last month the $37-billion Redmond-based software behemoth quietly withdrew its support for House bill 1515, the anti-gay-discrimination bill currently under consideration by the Washington State legislature, after being pressured by the Evangelical Christian pastor of a suburban megachurch.
You mean it's that easy? I got an idea...Let's all march on Redmond and threaten to boycott Microsoft...unless they fix all of these unnecessary s
Would that be the same consumer market that passed anti-gay marriage laws in 11 different states last November?
More specifically, those were state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS not just state laws. The whole reason for that is because they're afraid that activist judges would overturn laws already in the books. Currently 39 states have "Defense of Marriage Acts" as laws, as well as the federal DOMA.
They're only "activist" if they don't decide in your favor, at least as far as Rightists in the U.S. are concerned.
I would contend that what you say is an unfair generalization. I consider it "activist" when a judge looks at FOREIGN LAWS to decide their rulings, or when they rule against the will of the people and decide to legislate from the bench. Judges should only judge the law in question with respect to the US Constitution (or state constitution, for state laws) and NOTHING ELSE - and without
Or vagueness? Many laws (if not most) have a fair amount of vagueness in them (some by design), and sometimes two laws conflict with each other. Now, sometimes the ambiguity can be resolved by looking at the intent of the law, to the degree that such a thing exists. (Most people will agree that there's a "spirit" and a "letter" of the law. Where the "letter" is inexact, the "spirit" can help.) However, sometimes a case arises that even the best intentioned (and/or most conservative) judge cannot resolve simply by looking at past precedence, the spirit of the law, etc. In these cases, what is the proper avenue for this judge? Is it better to look at how other countries have resolved this situation and learn from their successes AND failures (i.e., if their resolution resulted in chaos, perhaps a different resolution should be considered), or should the judge rely on the toss of a coin? Or, better yet, perhaps he should ask his favorite political party for an opinion?
But I don't like the first one. Declining to hear the case is making a decision - a decision to let the lower court's ruling stand. Perhaps this is their intent, but I suspect your rationale might be the more common one. I truly have no idea.
As for your second point, for some laws this makes sense, but I'm not sure if it does for all laws. Take the Schiavo case - once the feeding tube was out some type of decision must be made, and made quickly. In this particular case I agree that the correct decision is
If the laws try to be too exact, they end up spelling out exactly where the loop-holes are. An interesting idea, although I'm not entirely sure I agree with it.
Precise laws with loopholes are far better than vague laws that nobody knows how to comply with. "Love your neighbor", for example, forms the basis of Christian faith, but would be a terrible civil law despite not having any loopholes.
Perhaps this is their intent, but I suspect your rationale might be the more common one. I truly have no idea.
This is never their intent. Trust me. Federal courts will flame you brutally if you attempt to suggest that the SCOTUS approves of a lower court ruling simply because they declined to take a case that challenged it. Denial of certiori means nothing.
I also meant to reply, that my answer is somewhat of a cop-out because of course the vaguest laws that the courts have to deal with are the Constitutional provisions - the very ones they cannot invalidate. In this case, I would argue that the text of the document should be considered first; then, the clear intent of the original writers of the provision. And that's it. If it still cannot be resolved, then the court should probably defer to the legislature and allow the challenged law to stand.
Veni, Vidi, VISA:
I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.
What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean it's that easy? I got an idea...Let's all march on Redmond and threaten to boycott Microsoft...unless they fix all of these unnecessary s
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would that be the same consumer market that passed anti-gay marriage laws in 11 different states last November?
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Informative)
More specifically, those were state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS not just state laws. The whole reason for that is because they're afraid that activist judges would overturn laws already in the books. Currently 39 states have "Defense of Marriage Acts" as laws, as well as the federal DOMA.
http://www.domawatch.org has good information.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would contend that what you say is an unfair generalization. I consider it "activist" when a judge looks at FOREIGN LAWS to decide their rulings, or when they rule against the will of the people and decide to legislate from the bench. Judges should only judge the law in question with respect to the US Constitution (or state constitution, for state laws) and NOTHING ELSE - and without
How do you recommend they resolve conflicts? (Score:2)
Re:How do you recommend they resolve conflicts? (Score:2)
1. Decline to hear the case at all, until a more amenable factual situation arises (only an option for the SCOTUS.)
2. Invalidate the law for being unconstitutionally vague. If the court can't figure it out, how can anybody who is supposed to follow the law?
Your second point has merit (Score:2)
But I don't like the first one. Declining to hear the case is making a decision - a decision to let the lower court's ruling stand. Perhaps this is their intent, but I suspect your rationale might be the more common one. I truly have no idea.
As for your second point, for some laws this makes sense, but I'm not sure if it does for all laws. Take the Schiavo case - once the feeding tube was out some type of decision must be made, and made quickly. In this particular case I agree that the correct decision is
Re:Your second point has merit (Score:2)
Precise laws with loopholes are far better than vague laws that nobody knows how to comply with. "Love your neighbor", for example, forms the basis of Christian faith, but would be a terrible civil law despite not having any loopholes.
Re:Your second point has merit (Score:2)
This is never their intent. Trust me. Federal courts will flame you brutally if you attempt to suggest that the SCOTUS approves of a lower court ruling simply because they declined to take a case that challenged it. Denial of certiori means nothing.
Re:Your second point has merit (Score:2)