Another Judge Thwarts the Will of the People
16 May 2006
I’m sure you’ve heard the news, another judge as thwarted the will of the people with the power of her gavel. Judge Constance C. Russell, of the Fulton County Superior Court, has single-handedly struck down a Georgia state amendment banning same-sex marriage. Although the amendment was passed by more than three-quarters of Georgia voters, Judge Russell struck it down because she took exception with the way it was worded. According to her, the amendment was procedurally flawed in its wording and therefore a violation of Georgia’s single-subject rule for amendments.
This ruling in Georgia reminded me of Judge Peter Smith’s recent ruling in London’s “Da Vinci Code” copyright infringement trial. Judge Smith admittedly encrypted a secret code into his ruling that would-be code-breakers have been trying to decipher ever since. While Judge Smith insists that he did it just for fun, I can’t help but wonder if all judges are cryptographers.
Isn’t it true that today’s judges constantly see things in our Constitution and laws that the rest of us can’t see? For instance, judges see a woman’s constitutional right to kill her unborn child, a homosexual’s constitutional right to commit sodomy, and the government’s constitutional right to take your property and give it to someone else. How else can this be explained apart from the ability of judges to decipher secret codes written into our laws that the rest of us can’t see.
According to Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, “The people of Georgia knew exactly what they were doing when an overwhelming 76 percent voted in support of this constitutional amendment.” Of course they did governor, but the good folks of Georgia don’t know the secret codes hidden in the law. It takes a judicial cryptographer like Judge Russell to decipher them for us.
What would America do without its Judge Russells? I guess we’d have to start taking the law at face value. Instead of depending on judges to decipher it for us, we’d have to start interpreting it according to its plain meaning.
To be fair, we contacted a local judge for a response to this article. However, all we got was the following reply: “UYWVX±*U=L#±YWV8.” We’re not sure what it means, but we may be in trouble.
Don Walton
|
