Nine years after Judge Jones issued his ruling in Kitzmiller v Dover, he has now struck down the Pennsylvania law that banned same-sex marriage. The Christian right has reacted with many of the same ignorant criticisms of the new ruling that they did with the old one.
Chris Plante of the National Organization for Marriage describes the ruling as “an end-run around the democratic process.”
Plante, Chris (NOM-RI)”It is a travesty of justice and [it] disenfranchises the people of Pennsylvania twice,” he argues. “Once, because they have been denied multiple times the right to vote on marriage; they have looked and asked for it for years. And now we have one man imposing his desires, his own opinion on an entire state and redefining marriage.”
As always, they argue against a specific ruling by arguing against judicial review itself. Every time a court strikes down any law whatsoever they’re doing an “end-run around the democratic process.” And as always, they ignore the constitution that they claim to love so much in the process. Judicial review was part of the constitution. Courts were given the power to make an “end-run around the democratic process” by the founding fathers by design.
Over the past several months, judges in several states have ruled voter-approved marriage amendments unconstitutional on similar grounds. Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania tells OneNewsNow she’s looking to Congress to take action against judges like John Jones.
“Congress has the ability in the U.S. Constitution to begin impeachment proceedings,” she explains. “When you look at these judges – not only Judge Jones here in Pennsylvania, but other federal judges who are handing down these decisions – their actions are unconstitutional.”
Again, ignoring the intention of the founders themselves, which gave federal judges as much independence as they possibly could for a purpose. Hamilton spelled out both the importance of judicial review and judicial independence in Federalist 78:
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
They do the same thing with the Constitution that they do with the Bible, declare their adoration of it without actually bothering to read it or understand it.