Maryland Democrats on judicial independence

This story from the Washington Post (h/t the Corner) is a fascinating study in conflicting priorities. For background, a Baltimore circuit court judge, M. Brooke Murdock, recently issued a ruling in a case called Polyak v. Conaway that declares Maryland’s definition of legal marriage as between a man and a woman to be unconstitutional. Speaking in general terms, that is normally thought of as a positive development for and among Democrats. It is no secret that, in general terms, the Republicans and Democrats are on opposite sides of the whole gay marriage / traditional values thing. So, one would think that Democratic leaders in Maryland would be excited about this court ruling, and want to see the appeal progress rapidly so that their gay constituents get a shot at having the Maryland Supreme Court give its approval to Judge Murdock’s decision. You would think that, but you’d be wrong. You see, it is also no secret that these types of social-engineering (and yes, I’ll say it — activist) actions by judges tend to spur conservatives (and I would argue the mainstream) into action. So what do you do if you are a Democratic leader in Maryland?

Maryland Democrats concerned about the political fallout from last week’s court ruling on same-sex marriage are considering a plan to block any final court ruling from taking effect until after the November elections.

The proposal would be offered in legislation by Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons (D-Montgomery) that would freeze any decision from the state’s highest court until the General Assembly has time to evaluate it.

That’s interesting. Does anyone here recall the reaction of the Democrats when the U.S. Congress crafted legislation to give a federal court jurisdiction to review Terri’s case? I do. It was the end of the world. It was said, loudly and repeatedly, that the Republican-led Congress was running roughshod over the doctrine of separation of powers. I happen to disagree for several reasons, but I don’t want to get into that arguement again. In any event, in the Schiavo case, the Republicans in Congress attempted to delay the implimentation of a state circuit court order in order to possibly save a woman’s life. The move was popular with some of the Republican base, but very unpopular with the state’s rights wing of the party. Of course, it was very, very, very unpopular with left, the MSM, and among people who generally don’t like scrutiny of the third branch of government (for more such scrutiny, visit CourtZero at your leisure).

In the Maryland case we have a direct reversal. The Democrats in the Maryland legislature want to delay the normal course of a judicial proceeding, not to save a life, not to stand up for the issues of their gay constituents, but purely to preserve their own political power as their highest operating principle. I think that the lawyers representing the gay litigants understand this completely:

Attorneys for the 19 gay and lesbian plaintiffs who sued to overturn Maryland’s law said they believe the legislature lacks the authority to intervene that way.

Maryland Democrats are willing to say (in the context of their own worldview) that “justice delayed” is what their gay constituents are going to get from them.

Although many Democrats, including Simmons, said they support the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, they also said they recognize that the ruling could hurt the party during key elections this year — the governor’s office and a U.S. Senate seat are at stake.

They said the ruling could galvanize Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.’s conservative base, increasing Election Day turnout for him and for Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele (R), who is running for U.S. Senate.

For those who may not be clear: I am not saying that I am in favor of same-sex marriage or of the court ruling. Far from it. I am saying, however, that the gay plaintiffs are entitled to litigate their issues and argue the appeal without being blocked by their “friends” in the legislature who are thinking only of their own power. That’s not what government - any branch of it - is about.

And I’m also saying that the left has a very flexible view of “the independence of the judiciary”.

Comments are closed.