Happy Holidays!
Florida Gay Adoption Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional
A Florida law that has banned adoptions by gay men and lesbians for over three decades is unconstitutional, a judge here ruled on Tuesday.
“The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption,” the judge, Cindy S. Lederman of Miami-Dade Circuit Court, said in a 53-page decision. She said the law violated equal protection rights for children and their prospective parents.
Florida is the only state with a law prohibiting gay men and lesbians — couples and individuals — from adopting children. The Legislature voted to prohibit adoptions by gay men and lesbians in 1977, in the midst of a campaign led by the entertainer Anita Bryant to repeal a gay rights ordinance adopted by Dade County.
…and…
U.S. Court Allows Abuse Case vs. Vatican
A federal appeals court has permitted a lawsuit over alleged sexual abuse to proceed against the Vatican, creating potential liability for the seat of the Roman Catholic faith for the activities of Catholic clergy in the U.S.
Monday’s ruling, issued by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, marks the first time a court at so high a level has recognized that the Vatican could be liable for the negligence in sexual-abuse cases brought in the U.S.
The ruling is seen as a breakthrough by those allegedly abused by priests. Investigators and grand juries have found several instances where the church failed to report alleged abusers and covered up alleged misdeeds to protect them.
The “activist judge” thing infuriates me. It betrays a deep ignorance of the role of the Judicial branch–which includes overriding public opinion when the public votes anti-constitutionally.
Great way to get around due process and fair consultation though…..IF you agree with the outcome.
I don’t see how this is getting around “Due process”- this IS due process.
ITA.
What’s ITA?
Me being lazy, sorry! It means, “I Totally Agree with you, Antigone.”
Hmmm, I thought the words “fair and Impartial” were in that whole “due process” concept. Aren’t Judges supposed to be impartial? Isn’t that, indeed, their very PURPOSE?
So how do you be “activist” and “impartial” at the same time?
So, you think it’s impossible to interpret the Constitution, in a fair and impartial way, to say that a law is wrong? Like, they’re just pulling it out of thin air? I think you’ll find a lot of activists didn’t become an activist because they felt like being unfair and completely biased.
That’s a tough question to answer, especially when you use the actual concept of unbiased juduciary to illustrate activist judges actions.
Of course, that’s not what’s really under discussion.
So, let’s just say that if a Judge has an agenda, or favoured outcome (activism necessarily entails that he/she does indeed have that), then it will bias the Judges rulings, possibly even the outcome of the case.
Of course, via the concept of case law / precedents this effectively means legislating from the bench (literally) out of bias.
Ergo, “Activist Judges”, by definition, subvert the Justice System.
Or it’s possible that the post author was using “activist” sarcasticallly, as she’s well aware that said judges will be immediately dogpiled by the nearest offended citizens and labeled as such. She (the post author) merely thinks of them as “judges,” doing their “judicial job.”
Tomayto, tomahto.