Conservative Hypocrisy On Legislating from the Bench
Wednesday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a challenge to Oregon’s assisted suicide law. Roberts asked a bunch of questions, and seemed to be quite vocally opposed to the Oregon law. Which is fine, I guess, I can see both sides of the morality question (though I do lean more toward allowing assisted suicide than banning it).
But the morality of this law isn’t really at issue here. The real issue, as Kathleen points out, is one of state’s rights, and indeed of legislating from the bench which raises the real issue: conservative hypocrisy.
Conservatives froth at the mouth at the thought of liberal justices coming in and usurping the will of the people by forcing their crazy ideas about equal rights (ya know, gay rights) on people. Over and over they say that the courts are undemocratic, and if people want gay marriage, or any other issue, then they should go through the legislature, or directly to the people in a referendum. In a way I agree, and in a way I disagree. Its a valid point, and I do grant that often the courts overstep their bounds, but there is definitely a role for the courts, and making sure laws don’t violate people’s constitutional rights is pretty important.
That being said, I’d respect their opinion on it a hell of a lot more if they were consistent. The Gonzales v. Oregon case is an example of them being anything but consistent. The Oregon voters passed a referendum supporting assisted suicide, the legislature passed it, the people clearly want it, but now all these conservatives who go nuts accusing liberals of “legislating from the bench” are asking the courts to overturn the will of the people and overturn this law. How fucking ridiculous.
Two of the groups who have filed amicus curiae briefs on this case are the Liberty Counsel and the Family Research Council. So both are directly asking the Supreme Court to overturn Oregon’s law. Which, again, if they were consistent about it, I’d have more respect for, but consider their thoughts on “legislating from the bench”:
From the Liberty Counsel:
‘’For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling,’’ said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver. ‘
“What the California Supreme Court has said in these rulings is that children can have two parents of the same gender. That is a very short step away from same sex marriage.”
Staver accuses the court of legislating from the bench, saying there is no law in California that sanctions parenthood to gay couples and that the rulings legitimize the concept. He is also concerned it sends a negative message about traditional marriage.
Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, said he was “disappointed” by the decision. “Redefinition of a law’s terms is for the legislature to do, not for a judge. She’s an activist judge legislating from the bench.”
From the Family Research Council:
The people acting through their elected representatives have every right to craft policies aimed at regulating behaviors that adversely impact public health and public morality. The court should respect the separation of powers, defer to the legislative branch, and resist the temptation to legislate from the bench.
“Nothing will be more important to President Bush’s legacy than the possible imprint he could leave on the United States Supreme Court,” says Family Research Council president Tony Perkins.
“President Bush has promised to nominate judges to the Supreme Court who will actually follow the rule of law instead of legislating from the bench,” Perkins added.
And if I were really obsessive, I could keep going. Anyways, its clearly just a load of crap. They’ve got no qualms about legislating from the bench or overturning the will of the people when it suits their purpose. They’ve got no problems overturning state’s rights when it suits their purpose.
For shame.
October 8th, 2005 at 11:29 pm
Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act: One Christian Perspective (Revisited)