Massachusetts' highest court said Wednesday it has no authority to force lawmakers to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But it rebuked the Legislature for its "indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties." (the Court giving its personal and not legal opinion is a violation of it duty to blind and objective jurisprudence)

The unanimous 7-0 ruling and the stinging reproach leave the fate of the amendment up in the air in the only state that allows gay marriage.Opponents of gay marriage have collected 170,000 signatures in favor of an amendment to end the practice. But the measure needs the Legislature's approval to appear on the 2008 ballot, and lawmakers refused to vote on the proposal last month. Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican expected to run for president in 2008, and other opponents of gay marriage responded by suing to try to force the lawmakers to act.In its ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court the same court that ruled in 2003 that the Massachusetts Constitution gives gays the right to marry said it cannot force a vote. It said that the Legislature's obligation to vote was "beyond serious debate," but that the most the court could do was remind lawmakers of that duty."There is no presently articulated judicial remedy for the Legislature's indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties," the court said.


I wish the NJ Supreme Court also realized that it has no constitutional authority to order the Legislator to enact a particular law.

Anyone catch CNN's After Jesus program that aired last week?

Interesting to see how CNN spinned the responsibility of the death of Jesus. Saying that He was a revolutionary that concerned the Romans and which forced them to crucify Him. CNN didn't mention at all that it was the leadership of the Jewish community that arrested Jesus and demanded that Jesus be crucified. Cupability goes far and wide on this and CNN did a deservice to the viewing public.

The NY Times editorial board criticized Pres Ford's pardon of Nixon, stating: the pardon as “a profoundly unwise, divisive and unjust act” that in a stroke had destroyed the new president’s “credibility as a man of judgment, candor and competence.”
Ford has since been given the Profile in Courage Award for the decision, which Senator Edward Kennedy, a onetime critic, described as essential to the restoration of national unity.

NY Times is wrong once again...

Who Has the Right To Define What Marriage Is?
And Who Has the Right To Define What Marriage Means?

Two totally different questions.

The Court didn’t “allow the legislature to fix” the error…the Court “ORDERED” (the preverbal “gun to the head”) one of two options. Once a law is ruled unconstitutional, it is unusual – very unique, for the Court to order the legislature to pass a COURT ORDERED Law.
There are many options that the legislature could have used to satisfy the equal protection violation that the Court claimed existed here.

The plaintiffs* in the case sought two things:

1. “A declaration that laws denying same-sex marriage violated the liberty and equal protection guarantees of Article I of the NJ Constitution” ;
2. “Injunctive relief compelling the defendant State officials to grant them marriage licenses”

The Superior Court judge on my side too: he ruled for the State (which was appealed to the NJSC) stating “only the legislature could authorize same-sex marriages”. My point exactly.

The plaintiffs didn’t realize it but an important distinction has to be made in that what they are actually seeking is more than they know in terms of the difference between the right FOR marry and the rights OF marriage. Two different things indeed.
These terms and definitions therein are the sole mandate of the Legislature, not nine judges of any particular court.
Even the NJSC seems to understand that it doesn’t have the authority to define marriage – after all they stated “..whether marriage or some other term, is a matter left to the democratic process”*. Glad to see the Founders of this Republic had some influence even on the NJSC!

There is a law on the books that addresses this: Domestic Partnership Act, as the NJSC states “explicitly acknowledges that same-sex couple cannot marry. “
The NJSC then goes on to say, infamously I might add, “Time and attitudes have changed”. How arrogant!
The NJSC finally states: “..the Court cannot find that the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right under our Constitution” Given this Court's history - which even the liberal professor from Harvard, Laurence Tribe stated in refering their ability to leave out words of laws and make things up, "irresponsible", one wonders why the NJSC just didn't miraculously "find" this right in NJ Law!

The NJSC finally ruled that the marriage laws themselves are NOT unconstitutional as they exist but rather equal benefits are being denied to same-sex couples and thus the legislature must address this “within 180” by doing one of two things:

1. Amend the marriage statues;
2. Enact an appropriate statutory structure …i.e. pass another law (which is what they did, hence “civil union”)


*Mark Lewis and Dennis Winslow, et al. v. Gwendolyn L. Harris, etc., et al (A-68-05)
Argued Feb 15, 2006 -Decided Oct 25, 2006

NJ Supreme Court's ruling: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/njruling.pdf

New Jersey Should Cut Taxes
Yes, cut… this is the opposite of the liberal/Democrat axiom that the way to increase govt revenues – remember NJ’s budget has tripled in six years, is to increase taxes. By cutting taxes, you spur economic growth and the overall tax base increases exponentially and walah! More revenues for the tax & spend crowd in Trenton.

Why New Jersey is the Joke of the Nation

"Abbott School Districts" now 31 school districts in the state that the NJ Supreme Court determined are "urban" and in violation of the State constitution that orders the State to provide "...maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools..."

First some history,
May 1998: The NJ Supreme Court issues Abbott V and orders an unprecedented series of entitlements for urban school children including: whole school reform, full-day kindergarten and preschool for all 3 and 4 year olds.

Never mind that this is 100% unconstitutional: The NJ State Constitution, Section IV states:

"The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of FIVE and EIGHTEEN years." The NJ Supreme Court's ruling left out the 5 to 18 stipulation in the State's Constitution...an act that the LIBERAL Harvard Professor Traub described as "irresponsible".

A Problem That Isn't There:
The Washington DC based Education Trust issued a report "The Funding Gap 2004" showing NJ is the nation's leader in providing equitable school funding for poor and minority students. This Oct 2004 analysis was done again in Jan 2006 and NJ leads the nation again.

While the State average education spending per pupil is just under $11.000, some of the Abbott Districts, like Atlantic City, are receiving $38,000 per pupil.

What does the Abbott School districts do with all this extra money? Superintendents (Jersey City) earn $300,000 per year and janitors make $150,000 in overtime!

Senator Hillary Clinton's Priorities

On tv this morning during an interview with Meredith Vierra, Hillary Clinton was asked if she was going to run for president and if she was "leaning any in any direction"?

Clinton answered:

"I want to make sure that this decision is right for,

me;
my family;
my party;
and my country"

Glad we now know her priorities.

"Ordered by the Court"

The NJ Supreme Court hit a new low for judicial prudence with its recent "gay marriage" rulling.

Today's LA Times describes the NJ legislature's bill on the subject:

"Ordered by the state Supreme Court to allow gay marriage..."

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but isn't one of the foundations of our Republic something called "seperation of powers". Where in the constitution does it say the Supreme Court has the authority to order legislation be written? On the contrary, the first article of the US Constitution says "ALL legislative powers...shall be vested in a Congress."

The Separation of Powers, by which the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are to be independent and not infringe upon each other's rights and duties, is one of the basic doctrines in the US Constitution.

New Jersey's Supreme Court ruled by a 4-3 margin that gay couples are constitutionally guaranteed the benefits of marriage. But the majority ruling left it to legislators to resolve the thorny question of whether to call their unions "marriage," reasoning that "the great engine for social change in this country has always been the democratic process." That last statement is so contrary to this state's Supreme Court's opinion of itself. It dictated a law be written (superciliously in six months no less) and the legistlators obediently succumbed.

The Supreme Court wrote in its opinion that "times are changing". The Supreme Court's septuagint assuredly makes that so, I just wish it was left up to the people to decide.

The "Airline-zation of the State of New Jersey"

The State of New Jersey is more and more everyday looking like the airline industry.

Why do I say this?

The airline industry has been run by its vocal employees who historically speaking, have not resisted the chance of striking to get what they want. Given their disregard for the welfare of the industry and the fact airline managements don't stay at an airline for more than a couple of years, airline unions have always received what they have wanted in contract negotiations. In watching the NJ state unions on Monday standing in front of capitol building in Trenton, I am reminded of airline unions sitting down on the tarmac at airports during their negotiations. Airlines are unable to withstand even an hour or two of downtime due to the extreme high daily costs of running their busineseses (jet fuel, airline leases,not to mention labor etc.) so whenever the airline unions threatened, airline management's gave in. No airline CEO wanted to be a captain of a sinking ship that he was only going to be in charge of for a couple of years. Initially the unions enjoyed always "winning" but eventually their greed and short-term sighteness drove the airlines into bankruptcy when the airlines could give no more.

Unfortunately, when I see Governor Corzine, who is supposed to be fighting for the NJ taxpayer, participating at state union rallies (his "ex" girlfriend runs the largest state union), I'm more than reminded of the potential dire reprecussions for the state in the long-term. Governor Corzine saying "he'll fight for fair union contracts" is like Yankees owner George Steinbrenner saying he'll fight for Derrick Jeter's contract. It would be so ridiculous if the consequences weren't so potentially fatal. If Trenton keeps this up, next up would be even higher taxes until the taxpayer can't pay anymore and then that leads to recessions, debt downgrades and bond defaults eventually culminating in bankruptcy. Municipal bankruptcies aren't unheard of (Orange County, CA in the 1995 has half the population of all of NJ) and are certianly feasible for this state which two Rutgers University economics professors reported "is in the worst financial shape since the Great Depression".

By the way, over a dozen school districts closed down because those teachers took off on Monday to go to Trenton and protest. Striking is illegal for state employees, anyone going to criticise them for that? Be forewarned New Jersey... the poticians in Trenton are writing the state's demise.

"America To Blame (For Everything)"

The rumors around the United Nations is that when Secretary-General Annan makes his final remarks to the Security Council on the Middle East today, he is going to let Iran and Syria off the hook and seek to blame Israel for the woes of the region.
Annan attacked the US at the Truman Library yesterday for losing its principles The gist of Annan's criticism is that America has disappointed the world by failing to live up to its own ideals

The Annan-Legacy At the UN
Kofi Annan Began as Secretary-General of the UN on Jan 1, 2002

Before Annan took office 64% of Americans believed that the UN was doing "a good job" (AP poll, Sept 2001). He started on Jan 1, 2002.
Today, two-thirds of Americans have “no confidence” (Gallup Poll) in the United Nations.

There could be numerous reasons for the swing in American popularity for the UN, but during his tenure – not all as Sec General, the following have happened — Rwanda, Sbrenica, the sex-for-food scandal of the peace-keepers, the oil-for-food scandals, the implication of the secretary-general's own son and some of his closest cronies in the oil-for-food scandal, the failure in Lebanon, the failure in Syria, the failure in Darfur, the failure of the reform of the human rights commission.

Annan will leave the UN and a large Soros charitable foundation that has likened Pres Bush to “Hitler” will finance his endeavors to the tune of $200mln.

The NY Times said so emphatically in their editorial today:

"This page (NY Times editorial) opposed Mr. Bolton’s nomination in the first place, arguing that at the very minimum, an ambassador to the United Nations should be someone who believed the organization deserved to exist. "

Bolton didn't believe the UN deserved to exist, just that it should exist in the current inefficient, corrupt and utterley ineffective state. After so many scandals, he wanted a positive change at the United Nations.

Perhaps the NY Times is okay with the Secretary General's relatives being paid in an attempt to influence the most senior position in the UN ("Oil for food scandal", which the NY Times failed to put on its front page - ever!). Or perhaps the NY Times is okay with a UN "Human Rights" Council that excluded the USA while such freedom-loving countries like Sudan, Libya, Cuba, etc. run the council.
If the NY Times thinks the United Nations is being run effectively than the NY Times should change its slogan: "All the News That's Fit to Print" to "Hear no evil, see no evil".

Star Ledger Has It Wrong

Today's "oops of the day" comes from the NJ Star Ledger. In the paper's editorial, the editorial staff state:

"The justices (US Supreme Court) will decide whether school districts have the legal authority to consider race as a factor when assigning students to a school - a practice common across the nation." This is simply false.

First, the US Supreme Court is not deciding the constitutionality of school "desegregation" based on race but rather if the way in which the two defendants are implementing school "desegregation" is constitutional. Two different questions.

Secondly, I put the word "desegregation" in quotes because as the Star Ledger admits,
"Fifty-two years after legally sanctioned segregated schools were declared unlawful, (sic) it is a great shame that public schools are more segregated today than in 1970." Therefore how can we call it "desegregation" if it doesn't desegregate? The Star Ledger inexplicably recommends the country maintain the current mechanisms even though the Star Ledger admits they aren't working.

Whether or not race quotas, affirmative action or any of the other means currently in use to achieve "diversity" across the country are constitutional is a good question, but clearly they aren't resulting in diversity. There is that famous Ned Lamont TV ad during the Connecticut senatorial campaign showing a car continuously crashing into a brick wall. Lamont's point was the Bush admin should change its Iraq strategy because it wasn't working. Perhaps the country should decide on another way of achieving "diversity".