August 13, 200421 yr Ive got a question for conservatives who attack the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme court recently. If the court was ruling a state law invalid based on an interepretation of the state constitution, why are conservatives attacking the court as having been reactionary and overstepping its power, ie the federalism arguments being made. I mean why have we been discussing federalism for this issue when no federal court has made any substanative decision as of yet? Is it just that out of state actors are disagreeing with a State court interpreting state law?
August 13, 200421 yr I'm confused as to what you are saying f_m... do you mean, why are out-of-state citizens upset that a state is doing things their way, and therefore contradicting our federalist approach? If so.. I see what you are saying. But the Constitution states that the States should be republican in form, which would have the legislation passed through legislators, and not a judicial fiat. But, like I said, I see what you are saying...it isn't "my state" so to speak... and as for fishfan46, that's an ignorant statement. It was posted that California also had their courts make a ruling pertaining to gay marriages, and the decision was indeed to "my liking"....yet I still don't agree with it, because it was through a judicial fiat.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.