'Let 'em vote,' Part IV
wants lawmakers to allow voters to vote. Scot
wants lawmakers to just follow proper constitutional procedures. I'm with Scot: Play by constitutional rules, and I'll be content. ... Interesting difference, I think, between Scot's view of parliamentary tricks and the reader's analysis below
. Scot says the courts have found 'no judicial remedy' for past Bulger-style antics when it comes to constitutional amendments. Reader QM says it's really about the SJC being 'spineless' when it comes to enforcing its own constitutional rulings. For some reason, Stalin's quip about how many divisions the pope has jumps to mind. If I know my State House lawmakers, their equivalent of divisions is the power over budgets and pay raises. ... I should note, though, that the SJC deserves credit for its decision yesterday
. I feared they'd overreach again. ...Update
- 7.12.06 -- Reader QM writes in to clear up matters (a bit):
Yes, the court did indeed say ('no judicial remedy') in that case as Scot said. But I stick by my 'spineless' charge. Remember, this is the same SJC that ordered the contents of legislators' offices sold off when the legislature refused to appropriate monies to fund the so-called 'Clean Elections' Law. And given the SJC's wont to invent things not in the constitution (c.f. the Goodridge decision), I'm supposed to believe the SJC couldn't rule something like 'any amendment not voted on is deemed approved by default' as a remedy/penalty?
All of this drives me crazy -- I'm in favor of gay marriage, but I want it done the right way. ...