The pseudo intellectuals are at it again, this they are using their proxies in the student media.  What is it called when judge, who is not accountable to the people, makes a law (or “forces” the legislature to make a law in accord with his ruling)?  It’s judicial fiat.

New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruled that the New Jersey Legislature MUST create a law that either gives homosexuals the right to marry or something equal to marriage with the same title.  In a sane world, such an action would cause an oversight body to call for the “responsible” judges to resign and impeachment proceedings would start against any judges who didn’t resign in the best interests of the law.

State constitutions need to be amended to prevent just this type of disgusting act.  A single judge can prevent the people of a state from changing the law either through their election of people that agree with them, or through the initiative process.  It’s happened too many times here in California (from where I’m writing).  Federal judges are more prone to this than others, because theirs is a lifetime appointment.

To compound matters is this opinion piece from former Supreme Sandy O’Connor.  Any statement that posits the weakness of the judiciary is meant to fool the sheeple.  Is the notion of holding the holy black robed ones to any standard such an abhorrent thought that Ms. O’Connor needs to fight against it?  Well, maybe the people should wake up and decide that the judges who keep affirmative action at the undergraduate level and end it at the graduate level need to find something else to do for a living.

New Jersey voters have the opportunity to vote for a senator who believes in judicial restraint and will work to end corruption.  Unfortunately, they can’t recall the judges on their Supreme Court.