One man or woman standing in the way of the peoples business.
When it is a judge overturning the will of the people, be it an elected body or a referendum, they are ACTIVIST JUDGES. You know, the bane of all that in good and holy, taking us down the road to hell faster and faster, good intentions to the right and left...
What about when it is a Governor? Can we on the left get all fired up over an activist Governor? ( from Pam's House Blend) :
"Vermont Governor Jim Douglas announced at a special press confernce this afternoon that he will veto the marriage bill when it reaches his desk. The Governor has a long standing policy of not issuing veto threats but said that he did so in this case because he feels the issue is a distraction, it's unclear whether or not supporters will have the 100 votes needed to overide."
A distraction? Really ? Hey, then I know a great way to make it go away.... BY MAKING IT GO AWAY..sign the damn bill, and move on. And why? If he needs some political cover he can just claim he is doing to peoples will. (" I hate the sodomites, but those darn liberals over in the house and senate.....") Mr. Douglas is the rarest of the rare these days, a walking do-do bird: A New England Republican....HOPEFULLY, soon to be , like the do-do, extinct!
Arnold did the exact same thing in California. The House and Senate in California passed a full out marriage equality bill TWICE, and ARNIE, vetoed it. Sure, sure, sure, I am all for some separation of powers and checks and balances and all, but in this case its my side that is losing, so I get to whine a little bit. Yes, it is his constitutional right to veto it, but is it the right thing to do? If it is the same as civil unions ( which Vermont was the first state in the country to allow) then what difference does the word make?
NOW, is Mr. Douglas ready for the coming distraction of a WHOLE lot of PINK DOLLARED skiers going over to New Hampshire or here to New York come next winter......
Actions have consequences.