Redstate

be Jersey

(couldn't resist)

Interesting development indeed! Keep us all posted on what happens!

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

On the one hand, the court might issue an honest reading of the state's constitution.

On the other, a blatant instance of judicial activism might help to remind social conservatives of how vital the courts--and therefore the Senate, are.

Especially helpful in Mo., where the liberal nominee has followed the Kerry approach--I opposed gay marriage, but I even more strongly oppose anything (like the FMA or the '04 amendment to the Mo. constitution) designed to thwart the judicial imposition of gay marriage.

...could result in a decision demanding the state recognize same-sex unions, because no language in any Constitution in the US was ever understood to mean any such thing.

Therefore, the only way to arrive at a Roe-like decision on marriage is if one believes in the absurd 'living Constitution' method of interpretation, which gives judges almost unchecked power in reshaping society.

Sorry for the cyptic remark above.

If the court rules the New Jersey Constitution does not require governmental recognition of same-sex "marriages," that would be an honest (i.e., remotely plausible) reading. Good. Justice is done

If, however, the court makes the manifestly erroneous conclusion to overturn a precedent that is hundreds (an in truth, thousands) of years old and read the latest emphemeral, libertine ideology into New Jersey's constitution, justice would not be done. But maybe, at least, it might get some social conservatives to take notice.

Ms. McCaskill's position is, like Kerry's, this: Pay lip service to some opposition to gay marriage, but, at the same time, oppose as "unnecessary," or "divisive" any measure, like the FMA, DOMA, or a state constitutional amendment (e.g., Mo's adopted in '04) that might actually obstruct the imposition of such "marriage" by judicial decree. You can be d--n sure that she will oppose, or even fillibuster, any judicial nominee who fails to either swear his undying fealty to Roe v. Wade or pledge an "open mind" to the prospect of issuing such a decree.

that Nj's high court do the right thing rather than give us an election boost. country before party.

"I'd prefer that Nj's high court do the right thing rather than give us an election boost. country before party."

Me too.

The point being that we are ALL better off if the stakes don't have to be so high. No better time for the courts to start being courts again and no super-legislatures than RIGHT NOW.

How sad it would be if our constitution can be yanked like a chain by the liberal activist judges *and* the Senate liberal Democrats like Kennedy and Schumer have (should they gain enough seats) a veto power over who gets to sit on the USSC. This gives them the indirect power to dictate United States social policy to the other 300 million of us ... well, then the country's hosed - no democracy, corrupted/gone freedom, and judicial imperialism, all in one big 'living constitution' ball of wax.

It's funny that the party is more concerned about getting someone elected than the actual issues at hand.

I'd prefer to see a just result. There might, however, be a silver lining--not so much concerning Republican partisan interests, but the interest of having faithful expounders of the law appointed to the federal courts, which interest depends, incidentally and unfortunately, on one party's electoral success in the presidential and senatorial elections.

the New Jersey Supreme Court does the right thing and upholds TRADITIONAL marriage. We don't want a pro-gay marriage ruling, folks.

that the decision will be made BEFORE the election. If they are going to make this decision, better that they should do it then rather than immediately after the election.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

on this issue?