Wednesday, January 4

Would that there were more activist judges.

I’m rather pissed that this past Monday the United States Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging Florida’s ban on adoptions by same-sex parents, Lofton v. Secretary of The Florida Department of Children and Family Services.

Why don’t they grow some balls like our Supreme Court here in Massachusetts? Why can’t they be… oh, what’s the word I’m looking for… more, you know, activist?

It really makes me sad that 2006 would be off to such a poor start, in the realm of jurisprudence, that is. Of course, some are saying that we shouldn’t attach too much significance to the Supreme Court’s refusal, given that they have broad discretionary powers to choose which cases they hear. They refuse to hear cases all the time and are not required to give a reason.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that they agreed with the decision of two lower courts in Florida who held that their state’s ban on same-sex adoptions did not violate the U.S. Constitution and that Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (which struck down Texas’ sodomy laws) didn’t apply in the case of a same-sex couple seeking to adopt a child. The plaintiffs had argued that the Lawrence decision protected them from discrimination based on sexual orientation. Judges in Florida disagreed and upheld the existing ban on same-sex adoptions.

Prima facie, it might appear that by refusing to review this case, the U.S. Supreme Court is offering its tacit approval of Florida’s discriminatory adoption law. However, there haven’t been many cases testing the breadth of the protection offered by Lawrence. It might be that the Supreme Court felt that Lawrence’s broader applicability, specifically in the area of same-sex adoption, was not yet ripe for review. A case is normally ripe for Supreme Court review only when several lower courts have had a chance to issue conflicting opinions on a particular subject.

Those who make this argument—and I’m not saying that I fall into that category—are probably right in one respect: Don’t spend too much time speculating on the Supreme Court’s motives in this particular instance, because when Torquemada (aka Samuel Alito) gets confirmed—and we all know that he will—we’re all screwed anyway.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stop sucking dick and all your woes will end, biatch.

1:19 PM  
Blogger Sandouri Dean Bey said...

speaking of growing some balls, why spew your hate anonymously, you twit? afraid i might come kick your bigoted ass?

1:33 PM  
Anonymous Sean said...

Of course, when I see "Tourquemada", all I can think of is Mel Brooks' performing his Inquisition song in his movie "History of the World: Part I". "Let's face it, you can't Tourquemada anything." I know, I'm just such the intellectual. I just wanted to pop in and say that I've enjoyed reading your site for a while now. I'm quite the culture/history fan, and I enjoy learning new and fascinating things from your blog. Thanks!

6:59 PM  
Blogger Sandouri Dean Bey said...

dude, that's a classic film. my sister and i used to hand things to each other and say "wash this" in our best dom deluise as caesar! thanks for reading, sean :)

8:59 PM  
Blogger jjd said...

at this point, I don't think I want *that* Supreme Court determining the breadth of Lawrence v. Texas. I'm sure it would be most narrowly construed.

11:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.

AMAN YALA CLAIMS NO CREDIT FOR ANY IMAGES FEATURED ON THIS SITE, UNLESS EXPRESSLY STATED. ALL VISUAL CONTENT IS COPYRIGHT TO ITS RESPECTFUL OWNERS. IF YOU OWN RIGHTS TO ANY OF THE IMAGES AND DO NOT WISH THEM TO APPEAR ON THIS SITE, PLEASE CONTACT ME VIA E-MAIL, AND THEY WILL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED.