Same-sex marriage coming to Utah

[Non Sequitur]

We aren't on the same page but maybe in the same chapter. I don't find his ruling "activist" and I don't think he's inventing a new Constitutional right. I think he should have granted a stay pending further review but have no issues with him not doing that as I don't think he's harming anything (I'm fully aware I'm biased here on the stay issue). In some regards I dread this whole thing since my family is visiting from Utah at the end of January and I'm sure I'm going to have to hear about this a million times over.

At the end of the day, who cares if the judge is "activist"? I certainly don't. Shelby did what was right. I don't care about procedure and I don't care about precedent. I care about getting it right. If there were message boards in the 60's, you would have Mississippi lawyers bemoaning the "activist" judges that were forcing integration against the will of the people. I would love to hear UVA, in one sentence, simply address what is right.

[TripletDaddy]

At the end of the day, who cares if the judge is "activist"? I certainly don't. Shelby did what was right. I don't care about procedure and I don't care about precedent. I care about getting it right. If there were message boards in the 60's, you would have Mississippi lawyers bemoaning the "activist" judges that were forcing integration against the will of the people. I would love to hear UVA say, in one sentence, simply address what is right.

Those people in the 60s bemoaning civil rights? Many were Mormon. They were also concerned with the rule of law and the will of the people.

[imanihonjin]

At the end of the day, who cares if the judge is "activist"? I certainly don't. Shelby did what was right. I don't care about procedure and I don't care about precedent. I care about getting it right. If there were message boards in the 60's, you would have Mississippi lawyers bemoaning the "activist" judges that were forcing integration against the will of the people. I would love to hear UVA, in one sentence, simply address what is right.

You are ignoring the fact that there is great danger in ignoring the procedure. It is great when a judge acts outside of his/her authority in a way that produces the right result, but the danger is that they are not always going to do what is "right".

[Non Sequitur]

You are ignoring the fact that there is great danger in ignoring the procedure. It is great when a judge acts outside of his/her authority in a way that produces the right result, but the danger is that they are not always going to do what is "right".

It's certainly a short term danger. In the long run, though, it seems like we eventually get it right. To UVA's credit he acknowledged that. He said eventually SSM would be universally accepted...eventually we move to what's right.

[Topper]

You are ignoring the fact that there is great danger in ignoring the procedure. It is great when a judge acts outside of his/her authority in a way that produces the right result, but the danger is that they are not always going to do what is "right".

Constitutional interpretation is not subject to one preferred construct. I agree in general I favor a more strict constructionist approach, but Judge Shelby's approach was a natural extension of some precedent. Could he have followed the approach used by Judge Jones in reviewing Nevada's provisions? Sure. However, it is not as if Judge Shelby's approach is that novel or unexpected.

[Topper]

It's certainly a short term danger. In the long run, though, it seems like we eventually get it right. To UVA's credit he acknowledged that. He said eventually SSM would be universally accepted...eventually we move to what's right.

I hate the term "getting it right" when we speak in terms of judicial decisions. Eventually, judicial decisions will fall in line with norms and will normalize in accordance with social preferences. Getting it right is a moral judgment, and legal decisions are not about moral judgments as much as reconciling legal approaches with expected norms of society. Most times, legal precedent follows what society or technology has already normalized. In a very few instances, none of which come to mind right now, does it lead. If you mean adopting law to the norms of society as "getting it right", then I understand, but such a statement is loaded, it gives more credit to law than the law deserves.

[All-American]

I hate the term "getting it right" when we speak in terms of judicial decisions. Eventually, judicial decisions will fall in line with norms and will normalize in accordance with social preferences. Getting it right is a moral judgment, and legal decisions are not about moral judgments as much as reconciling legal approaches with expected norms of society. Most times, legal precedent follows what society or technology has already normalized. In a very few instances, none of which come to mind right now, does it lead. If you mean adopting law to the norms of society as "getting it right", then I understand, but such a statement is loaded, it gives more credit to law than the law deserves.

Or less.

[Topper]

Or less.

Law is just an instrument utilized by society. Practitioners of it can do so nobly, but the law itself is nothing particularly noble or ignoble.

I view this more along the lines of utilitarianism, norms and relative values.

[imanihonjin]

It's certainly a short term danger. In the long run, though, it seems like we eventually get it right. To UVA's credit he acknowledged that. He said eventually SSM would be universally accepted...eventually we move to what's right.

Then why have any procedure at all?

[Jacob]

At the end of the day, who cares if the judge is "activist"? I certainly don't. Shelby did what was right. I don't care about procedure and I don't care about precedent. I care about getting it right. If there were message boards in the 60's, you would have Mississippi lawyers bemoaning the "activist" judges that were forcing integration against the will of the people. I would love to hear UVA, in one sentence, simply address what is right.

Scary thought. Judges should not be bound by law but only my their sense of what is right. Therefore, why not convict a rapist with insufficient evidence against him because the judge is aware of inadmissible evidence? Or the judge just feels the right thing to to is to convict a man who may be innocent. Who cares what the constitution says? Lets just do what is right, as a judge sees it. Surely he is more able to determine what is right than everybody else. Why should anyone else's or even a majority of people or the elected officials determine what is right? We've sure been wasting a lot of time electing people when we could have just been appointing a few judges to make these tough decisions for us all along.

[imanihonjin]

Constitutional interpretation is not subject to one preferred construct. I agree in general I favor a more strict constructionist approach, but Judge Shelby's approach was a natural extension of some precedent. Could he have followed the approach used by Judge Jones in reviewing Nevada's provisions? Sure. However, it is not as if Judge Shelby's approach is that novel or unexpected.

I was responding more to NS's statements regarding procedure and not the actual ruling.

[Jacob]

It's certainly a short term danger. In the long run, though, it seems like we eventually get it right. To UVA's credit he acknowledged that. He said eventually SSM would be universally accepted...eventually we move to what's right.

You clearly haven't thought this through. You are surely not so ignorant. You hold up Brown vs Board of education as an example of judges getting it right while ignoring that such decision came more than 50 years after Plessy vs Ferguson where the judges, of course, got it wrong (but not all of them). So by all means, lets ignore the clear meaning of the constitution (as they did in Plessy) and eventually they will get it right. Doesn't matter that for 60 years we were getting it wrong to the detriment of an entire race.

[Topper]

You clearly haven't thought this through. You are surely not so ignorant. You hold up Brown vs Board of education as an example of judges getting it right while ignoring that such decision came more than 50 years after Plessy vs Ferguson where the judges, of course, got it wrong (but not all of them). So by all means, lets ignore the clear meaning of the constitution (as they did in Plessy) and eventually they will get it right. Doesn't matter that for 60 years we were getting it wrong to the detriment of an entire race.

If the meaning is so clear, why do we need judicial review and interpretation?

[Jacob]

If the meaning is so clear, why do we need judicial review and interpretation?

Even when the meaning is clear, you still need a court to settle disputes. But the meaning is not always clear, or evident especially in the case of omnibus bills. But many things are clear.

[Topper]

Even when the meaning is clear, you still need a court to settle disputes. But the meaning is not always clear, or evident especially in the case of omnibus bills. But many things are clear.

Define "is".