Chutzpah Award of the Week: Hugh Hewitt Is Alarmed by CA’s Same Sex Marriage Ruling, When His Fecklessness Helped MA’s Gain False Legitimacy

The excerpt to come is from Hugh Hewitt, who in 2003 said that Mitt Romney should defy the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s Goodridge ruling, and then, inexplicably and without justification, backed off.

The excerpt to come is from Hugh Hewitt, who eventually became Mitt Romney’s go-to blog mouthpiece for the better part of two years.

The excerpt to come is from Hugh Hewitt, who, as far as I know, has said nothing about Romney’s abandonment of his duties under the constitution of Massachusetts when he unilaterally and extra-constitutionally imposed same sex marriage on the state — according to the New York Times, to keep a campaign promise to Log Cabin Republicans to “keep my head low” and “not lead a fight against same-sex marriage.”

Now, all of a sudden, Hugh Hewitt, in this excerpt, is alarmed about what transpired in California this week:

This will be an enormously important election for the future of the country. Marriage is of course a central institution that society must protect and nurture, but the idea of separation of powers and accountability for courts is also a bedrock principle of the rule of law, and it is eroding before our eyes. The California electorate will be asked to decide if it is willing to be ruled by judges, whether it will simply accept being told what they will do and when they will do it. I hope every interested citizen in the country, every religious leader fond of religious liberty, every legislator who takes his or her job seriously will grasp that the vote on the marriage amendment on the Califoria ballot is really much much more than just a marriage amendment and concerns far more than just California law –it is a vote on who rules, judges or the People, and its result will mark a decisive beginning of a rollback of judicial imperialism or a capitulation to the courts on this and on any other issue the courts decide to impose their will upon.

Where have you been, Hugh?

Same sex marriage is NOT legal in Massachusetts, and it will not be until the Massachusetts Legislature passes laws that make it so. The Court’s Goodridge ruling was an opinion, and not an order (see today’s earlier post with Gregg Jackson’s letter to the LA Times that concisely details how and why this is true).

Despite the fact that same sex marriage is not legal in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney openly broke the oath he swore to uphold, and acted as if the Court’s ruling had to be followed. It didn’t. By doing what he did, Romney gave the ruling a perception of legitimacy that it does not deserve, and proved himself objectively unfit for public office.

Now the California Supreme Court, in its same sex marriage ruling, has in effect declared a vote of the people to be unconstitutional, something that the Court does NOT have the power to do.

Arnold Schwarzenegger’s response has been to say he supports the Court’s ruling — despite that fact that there’s nothing available to “obey” but the will of the people. Schwarzenegger is on the cusp of following Mitt Romney’s example by breaking his constitutional oath of office. Unless he changes his mind, California’s governor will, like Romney, have proven himself objectively unfit for public office.

Instead of criticizing Schwarzenegger for abandoning his duty to defend his state’s constitution, feckless Hugh Hewitt is advocating the passage of yet another voter-approved measure that, unless I’m missing something, the California Supreme Court will throw out on the same grounds as it did the 2000 voter initiative earlier this week. (Note: After a brief call-in to Gregg at Pundit Review radio tonight, I’m led to believe that I’m NOT missing something.)

Why should interested people mobilize, Hugh, if you and others who should know better cower in the face of mere men and women in robes who pretend to make law from the bench, and when crunch time comes, shrugs and says, “shucks, we must obey”?

When will someone, anyone, state the obvious? Court rulings are not “orders” beyond the particulars of the individual cases they rule on. If legislatures don’t pass laws that implement court rulings, the only avenue by aggrieved parties for redress is to go to the courts with a new case. The aggrieved can get dozens of individual rulings in their favor, which is fine for them, but it means nothing to anyone else until a law is passed.

John Haskins, in an e-mail earlier today, said it well, as usual:

As the California court’s Lockyer opinion (with SF mayor Gavin Newsome) stated, no member of the executive branch has authority to issue marriage licenses not authorized by California’s marriage statutes. That principle is not negated by the new opinion. In fact, this new opinion hardly pretends to negate that constitutional principle, since it is merely a declaratory judgment lacking any orders or any relief for the plaintiffs. Therefore, no member of the executive branch, no town or city clerk, nor any JP is authorized to proceed differently unless the people’s initiative marriage statute is revoked, which can only be done by the people.

The Founders made it pretty simple: They denied the judiciary the power of the sword. No judge or team of judges can do the slightest thing to enforce their own opinions. They can jump up and down and pee in their pants, but they can’t enforce their opinions. That is left entirely to the executive branch, which swears in the Holy name of Almighty God to:
– uphold our constitutions, including their strict and very clear separation of powers
– execute statutes.

No servant of the people swears any oath to enforce any court opinion. EVER.