Not every former RNC member is like Ken Mehlman. Political strategist Drew McKissick takes on the outrage that is Judge Walker's tyranny:
Judges, Marriage and Self-Government
In referring to our form of government, Alexander Hamilton once said, “Here sir, the people govern”. But given the actions of some of the more arrogant members of our judiciary, there seems to be room for doubt.
In 2000, the people of California approved a statewide referendum defining marriage in that state as the union of one man and one woman, but in 2008 their state supreme court threw out that law (by a four to three vote of the court). So in November, 2008 voters approved a state constitutional amendment to overturn their supreme court’s decision and again take control of the definition of marriage in their state, just as voters in over thirty states have done.
It has been a mass expression of sovereign will on a single subject unlike few (if any) others in our nation’s history – and one at which activists judges continue to thumb their noses.
A few weeks ago, federal district Judge Vaughan Walker gave us the latest example of contempt for popular sovereignty by overturning California’s state constitutional amendment. It’s only the latest round of what has been an ongoing battle with activist judges.
The problem is that we have too few real judges in our country, and far too many would-be judicial oligarchs who see themselves as the “supreme” branch of our government, rather than just one of three. It’s the product of a philosophy that sees our constitutional structure as an eighteenth century anachronism, rather than the law of the land.
Jefferson once noted, the Constitution “is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” And so they have.