Though Democrat Jim McGreevey (D-Vince Lombardi Rest Stop) appointed the author of New Jersey's tyrannical gay marriage decision, Republican Christie Todd Whitman appointed the loon Chief Justice who dissented that the ruling did not go far enough--just as Republican Bill Weld appointed the South African jurist Margaret Marshall, who forced gay "marriage" on Massachusetts, just as Republican Richard Nixon appointed Roe v. Wade author Harry Blackmun to the Supreme Court, just as Republican Gerald Ford appointed Kelo v. New London author John Paul Stevens. Why, again, is it so important to blindly follow the GOP?

Why are American judges, regardless of who appoints them, so screwed up in regards to the law and their role ?

Seems like the problem is more fundamental that who picks them, and that the laws schools are teaching these guys soemthing a bit wacky.

This is why it’s close minded to follow the party line just to follow the party and why for the most part choices should be thought out without regard for a candidate’s political affiliation. Sadly, most times the $hit sandwich might taste just as bad as the worm sandwich, just that the latter smells less offensive. That typically explains our political menu. It still holds true that overall, because of political philosophy, GOP candidates will hurt us a bit less than ones who are socialist, tax and spend, agenda driven panderers to the minority group du jour…Like the Dems.

Good point, Jason. Though some of the GOP duds truly have been stealth candidates (David Souter), and the shortcomings of others were well advertised (Sandra Day O'Connor), sometimes the president appointing the bad judge just could not have predicted how that judge would rule ten, fifteen years later. Perhaps liberalism is just ingrained within the legal culture. You bring up law schools, which is a fair point. But beyond that there may be a general tone in the legal profession that approves of liberalism and rejects conservatism.

One could make a valid equal protection argument for gay marriage.

That said, I agree that it should be the legislature, not the courts making these decisions.

Question for all you "strict contstructionists" out there though.

Why blame the courts?

Why not blame the legislatures for not having the balls to decide this issue one way or another?

The courts are just reacting to legislative inaction and cowardice.

If the legislature is inactive then that is their prerogative. It is none of the court's business whether the process moves quickly, slowly, or at all. If any justices on the court want to see legislative action then they should resign from the court, get elected to the legislature, and craft legislation.

Concerning judicial appointments, the days of blindly following the Republican are over. Witness dear Harriet.

The tyranny is restriting the freedoms of a certain percentage of Americans just because some old book says they're sinners.

That's the tyranny.

My sentiments exactly, HeHe. A few years back, some people wanted to restrict my freedom. According to some old book, I was a sinner because I had broken a "commandment." Luckily, my lawyers found twelve Americans who thought like we do HeHe.

Dan, your blog has arrived. The Juice is here.

You don't blindly follow the party. You should get involved in the primaries to get genuine conservatives in office.

There's many colors in the homo rainbow.

Don't be afraid to let your colors SHINE.