While law is not what I do, Iit seems that a lot of civil rights cases involved a judge who placed his own interpretation of the Constitution above the states powers to define their laws. Miscegenation was the law of the land in many of our states as recently as 60 years ago, as far as I know all such laws have been overturned, many involuntarily. Somebody will probably bring up Loving vs. Virginia , but a closer parallel might be Perez v. Sharp (CA 1948) , in which the Supreme Court of California recognized that interracial bans on marriage violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. I mention it as a closer parallel because their 2008 decision In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 757,which declared that the portions of California law restricting marriage to be between a man and a woman unconstitutional, was based on Perez. So I agree - Judge Friedman didnt put a lot of weight on the will of Michigans citizenry circa 2004 when he made his decision. Many other judges have done the same thing, I guess thats considered interpreting the law under the Constitution...
Posted on: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:06:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015