My favorite part of the article, besides of course, the fact maybe now we can start chipping away at this unsustainable, illegal and outright idiotic legislation, is the following paragraph:
White House health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle said the administration is encouraged by the two other judges who have upheld the law. She said the Justice Department is reviewing Hudson's ruling.Ya think???
Also, what kind of title is "White House Health Reform Director" anyways? Sounds like a very specific job which may go *POOF* if this legislation is gutted. I wonder how many other "waste of taxpayer money" type jobs this and previous administrations have floating around...
But I'm getting sidetracked, apologies! I'm just so excited to see a judge doing something downright constitutional and in the spirit of liberty, instead of:
1. Striking down state immigration laws (Arizona):
From the article -
Congress must reform our broken immigration system. Congress' failure to do so, however, does not allow states to enact their own patchwork of immigration laws.Really? The States have no right to fix the federal government screw ups? Doesn't the federal government derive it's powers from those granted to it by the States and the People? Also, from the article -
Judge Bolton issued a carefully crafted decision. Procedurally, this was just a preliminary decision. She noted that preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced.Really? Now we cannot actually interpret law, just pick the lesser of two evils and go with it?
2. Overturning voter approved state constitution amendments:
California voters defined marriage as between a man and a woman. A judge overturned it saying it violated the State Constitution. California voters amend the State Constitution (passing Proposition 8 by a 52% majority) then a gay judge - obviously not biased in his decision making - overturns the ban again, citing moral disapproval, and claims "California has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions."
Seriously? 52% vote to differentiate, and a judge somehow things Californians, using law and representation, really didn't know what they wanted and changes the law?
3. Dictating military recruiting policies: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0910/Federal_judge_overturns_Dont_Ask_Dont_Tell.html
First, the military does not fall under the purview of judges. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and Congress retains the power to wage war...
Second, those serving in the military fall under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and not the Constitution. Sounds unreasonable, but to preserve and enforce the chain of command, that's how it has to be. Soldiers trying to enforce their supposed Constitutional right to Unionize for better wages, conditions, and what-not, just won't work.
4. Letting people vote 6 times for one candidate???
Yup, if people of your ethnicity won't go vote, you can just vote for one candidate SIX times, to ensure at least one of the candidates you like, wins... Town elections today, Presidential elections tomorrow? The precedent has been set...
SOOOO finally we have a judge that actually isn't caught up in the hype, chooses not to suck up to a Presidential administration (in hopes of appointment to a higher court later) and actually reads the legislation, applies 200+ years of Constitutional law, precedent and understanding to it, and rules in favor of liberty, the States, and the PEOPLE!
THANK YOU District Judge Henry E. Hudson!