Wednesday, December 27, 2006

SJC Ruling Imminent

The Supreme Judicial Court will issue its ruling on the Doyle case at 10:00 this morning, I'm told. This is the one in which Mitt Romney is asking the court to force the legislature to vote on the marriage initiative.

I'm no legal scholar, but I would be surprised if the court found that the plaintiffs have any recourse, regardless of the judges' interpretation of the statute.

In any event, my prediction is that this is all moot. From conversations I've had since the ConCon recessed on November 9, my sense is that Trav fully intends to hold a vote when the ConCon reconvenes next week.

Although, maybe all this name-calling and lawsuit-filing will cheese him off enough that he changes his mind and buries it just for spite.

Nevertheless, my predictions are no intervention by the SJC, but a floor vote next week anyway.

Update: Well, it appears I'm right on the first part. The SJC has ruled that it has no power to force the legislature to act.

12/27/2006 9:42:13 AM by David S. Bernstein | Comments [2] |

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 11:38:21 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will), but isn't this the same court that ordered the MGC to enact legislation to make same-sex marriage legal, once they ruled that the Constitution in its present form did not prohibit it?

Were they not "forcing the legislature to act" back then?

So, now the SJC is essentailly saying the legislature is all-powerful and no one can do anything to prevent them from doing whatever they want.

This will please some, as it seems tyranny and the usurpation of due process are OK.

...as long as the tyrants are on your side.

This is nothing more than an extension of the "Equal rights for our side only!" philosophy that drives this state.

I don't miss it.

Bruce

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 2:11:55 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)

The SJC didn't order the legislature to act on same-sex marriage. It gave the legislature six months to try to write new legislation on the matter if it wanted to (which it did not), before the ruling went into effect. That ruling was that it was unconstitutional for officials in the executive branch of state government to deny marriage licenses on the basis of matching gender.

The overriding issue is a separation-of-powers aspect that goes way, way back in American history. The judiciary interprets, it does not enforce.

More interesting, though, is the specific issue, which is that the judges ended the debate over whether the legislature is required to act. It is.

However, as I suggested above, I think everyone's putting the cart before the proverbial horse: the legislature has not, in fact, refused to act. And, I predict that they will vote.

David S. Bernstein

Comments are closed.