Skip to main content

View Diary: NYT: Conservatives were behind granting cert to Prop 8 case (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ah those "unelected judges" again (13+ / 0-)

    Technically the phrase is correct; federal judges are appointed, not elected. And so are most judges at lower levels (with some exceptions and caveats such as those states in which judges must stand for re-confirmation at the ballot box periodically). However, every last one of them is appointed by someone who IS elected and is confirmed by some legislative body which is also elected.

    So whenever I see the whole "unelected" thing come up I'm tempted to become...a bit uncivil in my tone of voice.

    It is interesting to note in particular that many of the judges who have issued rulings on DOMA and Prop 8 were appointed by Republican presidents going all the way back to Richard Nixon (Judge Tauro who issued the two rulings against DOMA in the First District) and forward all the way to George HW Bush (Judge Vaughn Walker who issued the initial ruling against Prop 8). Judges appointed by George W Bush have also issued or supported rulings favoring marriage equality and/or LGBT rights. If the wingers were so concerned that NOBODY, but NOBODY vote in favor of sexual minorities, why did they so enthusiastically vote for the people who appointed those judges?

    •  they were complaining (10+ / 0-)

      a week or so back, about how 'the judges should stay out of it'.
      The responses I was seeing were mostly on the order of 'you appealed it - shouldn't you have thought of that before?'

      (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

      by PJEvans on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 03:10:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh yeah... (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aunt Pat, RonV, ExStr8, terrypinder, irishwitch

        I love it when they do that. Judges are great as long as they give us the results we want. Otherwise they should stay out of it. They're always trying to find ways to limit the jurisdiction of the courts so that they can go to court when a legislature passes a law THEY don't like but WE can't go to court when a legislature passes a law WE don't like.

        Or else they just want to punish the courts for being independent.

        It seems to me that if a legislature (or Congress) were to pass a law, which included a provision that said law would be exempt from judicial review, that exemption could still be litigated.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site