Democrat Dallas Judge Does Dangerous Activism

In an act of Judicial Activism gone bonkers, Democrat Dallas Judge Tena Callahan issued a ruling that allows gay couple to divorce, despite there being no Texas law to support such a ruling and a Texas Constitutional provision that says marriage is only between a man and woman. How did this Democrat activist Judge get around that pesky non-existence of any law to support her ruling?

State District Judge Tena Callahan, went even further and ruled that the Texas Constitution is unconstitutional.

Brilliant! Declare the Constitution unconstitutional! On what basis? A claim that traditional marriage violates the 14th Amendment. Whoa, that is a huge and broad claim - one that no Federal court has ever made! It's mind-boggling for a State district Judge to make such a ruling. There is activism - the act of twisting the law to achieve political or personal preference goals, and there is activism gone bonkers, where you toss law, precedent and common sense to the winds. This is the latter.

Attorney General is not amused by the hijinks: "Today's ruling purports to strike down that constitutional definition... The Office of the Attorney General will appeal the court's ruling to defend the traditional definition of marriage that was approved by Texas voters."

Democrats swept the Dallas county courthouse races in 2006. In came a new set of Democrat Judges, supported by liberal special-interest groups that have their own agendas, like gay marriage. One conclusion to make from this: A vote for a Democrat Judge is a vote for gay marriage.

This Judge’s bad ruling will almost certainly be overturned as contrary to the Texas constitution, but this judge is engaging in judicial harrassment and abusing the law in ‘pushing the envelope’ in the first place.

UPDATE:

Here is the text of the Texas State Constitution Marriage Amendment:

(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

And here is an analysis of what this is all about:

... pro-gay marriage forces have pushed for individual states to recognize gay marriage with the clear intent of using Full Faith and Credit to make gay marriage a norm across the nation once it was recognized by a single state. Texas enacted their constitutional amendment as a prophylactic against that strategy. The judge in this case is overreaching. The state doesn’t recognize this particular marriage so she doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear a divorce or annulment of what is — in the eyes of the state — not a recognized legal construct.

There is a simple answer to this dilemma where two states’ constitutions come into conflict. The parties who want the divorce of a “marriage” should get the divorce decree done in a state that recognizes their relationship. This is not the 18th or 19th century where travel back to the locale that issued the “marriage” certificate would constitute an undue burden.

Sotomayor and the forgotten Constitution

The nomination of Judge Sotomayor now moves to the Senate, where the Kabuki dance of the confirmation hearings is taking place this week. Senators make speeches with questions marks at the end, and the show-prepped self-described "wise Latina" will respond by saying as much nothing as possible.

Let me remind the good Senators on both sides what this confirmation should be about: The Constitution. Senators, Presidents, and Supreme Court Justices all take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. To uphold the Constitution must have some real significance, or it would not be core part of the oath of office. In monarchies and despotisms, fealty was to the King or leader, but in our Constitutional Republic, we expect fealty from public servants to the laws and the Constitution?

What should 'uphold the Constitution' mean to the Judges? Like a gothic arch that is architected to make the free space of a cathedral, the architecture of our Republican form of government and legal system is the structure to support our freed and civil society. It consists of a division of powers between branches of Government; it includes the concept of limited Government - that Government only has powers granted by the people to it; it includes Federalism, and our Bill of Rights. The foundation that underpins our political order and civil society is the concept that we are ruled as a nation of laws, not men. Presidents must execute the laws, and not merely what they wish; Judges must be bound to interpret the law as it is written, not as they would wish it. It is left to political bodies to make the laws. The Rule of Law and the Constitution can only be upheld if it has substance and a grounded certainty, and if Judges themselves share this understanding of the architecture of our Republic and abide by this Constitutional and legal scheme.

This is all good civics, but how does Obama's nomination play into this? The fact that it doesn't is the point. The Sotomayor nomination was partly an ideological pick ("empathy" as a code word for liberal judicial activist) and partly an identity politics pick (Obama had no white males in his 'shortlist' and wanted a minority on SCOTUS). Where in Obama's nomination was consideration given to the question: Does she adhere to the laws and the Constitution as they are written? Does she faithfully interpret the laws, without injecting personal bias or consideration?

We sadly know the answer. President Obama has made it his intent to only nominate Judges whose view of their role is inherently corrupted, defective and wrong. Sotomayor wants Judges to change laws not just interpret them. Sotomayor reached an unwise and unwarranted decision in Ricci, that the Supreme Court overruled. Here ruling was Prejudiced. She doesn't recognize Second Amendment Rights that are clearly written in the Consitution, and likewise appears hostile to freedom of political speech in campaigns.

In fact, Obama's fatal flaw is that he was and is specifically seeking out, via his 'empathy' standard, Judges who would bend the law to reach the 'right' conclusion. This view of the law has corrupted the bench, put courts on the path towards judicial activist overreach and even tyranny, and undermined the rule of law. It has also, in this era of "Borking", led to politicization of the judicial nomination process. The true primary role of Judges has been relegated by liberals who reject this view of the Judge's proper role, to an "ism" - "Originalism" and "judicial conservatism", and even the perverse view of calling it 'activism' if someone who upholds a traditional view of judges as interpreters of the laws tries to overturn bad judicial rulings not based on it.

Basic civics-level understanding of what Judges should and should not do is being ignored. Liberals since the time when FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court in an act of political bullying, have seen the courts in a dangerous and new light - as an avenue for political advancement. In the hands of groups like the ACLU and gay activists, courts have made political decisions that elected bodies were unwilling to make; those actions invariably have coarsened politics and deprive Americans of both liberty and democratic choice.

The classic example of such Judicial activist overreach has been Roe v Wade, which used oxymoronic construct of 'substantive due process', misread the 14th amendment and Constitution, denied rights to unborn, and cast a shadow on abortion policy for a generation by trumping democratic local and state choice on matter. It's a decision so obviously wrongly reasoned that even legal expert liberals like Alan Dershowitz acknowledge the decision was flawed.

The Judges serve a role as watchdogs of the law and of due process. When Judges are asked to do two things, their primary mission suffers. A Judge cannot serve an ephemeral "empathy" standard that is code for liberal social policy and serve the law through interpretation at the same time. This is akin to asking the Federal reserve to keep sound money and low unemployment; juicing money to goose employment ends up watering down the value of money. Just as President Obama's economic policies that ask the Federal reserve to do too much are a threat to the soundness of the U.S. dollar, so too his approach to judicial nominations will lead to Judges who undermine the rule of law and the Constitution.

The currency of the Rule of Law weakens when Judges are asked to do too much. While Senator Cornyn asks many great questions, the one question that needs to be answered is: "Judges take an oath to uphold the laws and the Constitution. Will you keep your oath, above and beyond all other considerations, as your sole, primary, and unwavering objective?"

BREAKING FREE FROM THE CONSTITUTION

By Bob Ward
Nov. 14, 2008 - There are any number of things to be concerned about in a Barack Obama administration but among the most serious is his attitude toward the judicial branch.
In a 2001 interview on National Public Radio, Obama discussed the Supreme Court’s role in the civil rights movement. While the court affirmed the basic civil rights of blacks, he recalled, it “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.” The reason the court failed to redistribute wealth, according to Obama, was that, “It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
While most Americans would consider it appropriate for a court to adhere to the Constitution, Obama sees it otherwise. The Constitution, he said, “reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.” And that blind spot, he continued constitutes “the fundamental flaw of this country.
”During the Obama administration, our judges – at all levels from District Court to the U.S. Supreme Court – will be appointed by someone who believes it is their duty to “break free” from a flawed constitution.
Obama plainly believes courts should disregard the Constitution in order to redistribute wealth. It is unclear in what other areas he thinks the Constitution should be overruled. There is strong sentiment among Democratic leaders in the Congress to re-establish the “fairness doctrine” in broadcasting. The old fairness doctrine was abolished under Ronald Reagan and the result was the rise of talk radio. This medium, dominated by conservatives, is a raspberry seed in the molar of liberals. There have been attempts by liberals to emulate the success of conservative talk radio and they have all been dismal failures.
Under the fairness doctrine a radio station that aired Rush Limbaugh would be compelled to devote three hours to liberal talk that nobody would listen to. Stations would respond by changing their formats to less controversial programming.
The legal basis for this intrusion by government is the fiction that the “airwaves” belong to the public and the statutory requirement that stations licensed by the Federal Communication Commission operate “in the public interest.” These conditions do not apply to non-broadcast media which are protected from government interference by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
However, Obama believes the Constitution is flawed and courts should “break free” from it. It is notunreasonable to expect the Federal government, under Obama, to attempt to control other media. Most vulnerable is the Internet with its bloggers who operate without the editorial “gatekeepers” that keep the mainstream media in line and usually without the discipline of the marketplace as well.
And if the mainstream media become victims of Obama’s judicial philosophy, they have only themselves to blame. They gave this guy a pass overall, and specifically, this interview with National Public Radio should have gotten widespread coverage early in the campaign instead of turning up on a few conservatives venues just days before the election.
Churches are another area where the Constitution is on shaky ground. There are already constitutionally suspect limits on what pastors can say or do if they speak for their congregations on public issues while enjoying a tax exemption. Liberal pressure groups are constantly filing complaints with the IRS in an attempt to silence conservative clergy.
Under an Obama administration, such groups could succeed beyond their wildest dreamsand without the complication of involving the IRS. A pastor who spoke out against homosexuality, forexample, could be charged with a hate crime, as happens in Canada, and the U.S. Justice Dept. would deal with him.
Creative U.S. attorneys could find new ways to enforce the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law to silence critics during the critical weeks just before an election. And Federal judges who subscribe to the Obama view of the Constitution will uphold these prosecutions.
The First Amendment guarantees of free speech and religious freedom are not the only rights that canbe violated once our courts are populated by judges who consider it their duty to “break free” from a flawed constitution. Life, liberty and certainly property are at risk once Barak Obama begins to appoint judges and the Democratic controlled Senate starts confirming them.

Texas Conservative Conference: Live Blog. Cynthia Dunbar

Cynthhia Dunbar, a State Board of Education Member, is running for Congress in CD 22. CD 22 is Tom DeLay's former seat in SW Houston and Fort Bend County.

Mrs. Dunbar is giving a tremendous speech on judical activism, Constitutional Law, and the direction of the Republican Party with respect to activist judges. I decided not to write much on this topic as she is facsinating to listen to and I did not want to distract myself.

She also mentioned some of the battles of the State Board of Education with textbook cirriculum. What the children of the present learn today, they will become later in life. Because the children are learning entitlements, big government, and poor skills to achieve success, we will turn out a generation that looks to the government to solve all of our problems.

I encourage all to talk to Cynthia Dunbar about Constitutional Law and judicial activism. She is fantastic!