Great point.

I’ve enjoyed digesting the Prop 8, DOMA, and DADT legal briefings, or at least as much as my layperson’s brain can absorb, this summer. One of the insights gained has been that judges’ opinions don’t matter, but their judgment does. That includes their ability to evaluate evidence… their capacity to apply the many facets of existing precedent… their skill with pulling all of the disparate facts, arguments, and precedents together to craft a credible, well-integrated ruling.

So, being OCD about editing everything I hear/read, I love the truth embedded in your opening sentence, Timothy, and I also fell immediately into wondering whether judgment or legal judgment would have been more punchy than opinion.

All of this speaks to the overarching point of your post: The work of judges matters, and the nuts-and-bolts outputs of a tiny few matter a lot.

Be well…

Unless of course it is sexual perversion as practiced by heterosexuals.

One cheer for democracy.

Elected judges may be fine for civil and criminal trials (but I doubt it), but if you have elected judges, why bother at all when it comes to questions of what the law means? You might as well leave it up to the elected legislature and/or executive to determine the meaning of the law, after all, who would know best than those that enacted it?

This is actually not really marriage equality, it’s recognition of marriages / unions in other countries as being the equivalent of a registered partnership (in some cases a downgrade). I’ve been watching the story and I think the bigger story will be how the federal government responds.

Tasmania and the ACT have been trying to enact equality for a while now, but the Feds keep pushing back. There’s a concurrent story about the recent election and the power play by the independents and I’ll post soon tying it all together.

Now back to O’Connor and Iowa.

:)

Great idea! That way the judicial branch can protect and represent the interests of the majority, just like it was meant to.