WHAT'S THE TRUTH? JOHNSON LIED OR SUPREME COURT VIOLATES PUBLIC TRUST
Craig Westover has exposed a very large fib from Senator Majority Dean Johnson about the Defense of Marriage Amendment.
Below is the partial text of the article. Click here to read additional thoughts from Westover about this subjcet on his blog.
"The debate over amending the Minnesota Constitution with a definition of 'marriage' has not lacked for exaggerated rhetoric. Sometimes that's all it amounts to — exaggeration. However, when a legislative leader makes a statement that potentially undermines the integrity of the Minnesota Supreme Court, well, that bears investigation.
During a January meeting with Spicer-New London pastors, Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, defended his view that because Minnesota has a 'stringent' statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman, a Defense of Marriage Amendment is unnecessary. The gathered pastors, on the other hand, contended that court decisions overturning such laws in other states make the amendment necessary.
An honest disagreement, but this particular meeting is significant. On a digital recording, made by a pastor without Johnson's knowledge, Johnson says that although he could make 'no guarantee,' justices had told him the state Supreme Court would not hear a challenge to the marriage statute.
'Members of the Supreme Court, I know all of them. I've had a number of visits with them about our law. All of them, every one of them,' Johnson said. He quoted (by name) a justice as saying 'Dean, we all stand for election, too. We are not going to touch it (current law).' He generalized the response of other justices as: 'Dean, we're not going to do this. We're not going to do this.'
Here's the problem. The coin of the judicial realm is trust. Respect for law begins and ends with public perception that judges, regardless of their personal views, render impartial judgments based on the law. Justices do not pre-judge cases in public. They do not say how they might rule in a specific case. They do not discuss specifics of cases that might come before them — even to Senate majority leaders. To do so is a serious breach of judicial ethics." Source: Pioneer Press, March 15, 1006
Below is the partial text of the article. Click here to read additional thoughts from Westover about this subjcet on his blog.
"The debate over amending the Minnesota Constitution with a definition of 'marriage' has not lacked for exaggerated rhetoric. Sometimes that's all it amounts to — exaggeration. However, when a legislative leader makes a statement that potentially undermines the integrity of the Minnesota Supreme Court, well, that bears investigation.
During a January meeting with Spicer-New London pastors, Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar, defended his view that because Minnesota has a 'stringent' statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman, a Defense of Marriage Amendment is unnecessary. The gathered pastors, on the other hand, contended that court decisions overturning such laws in other states make the amendment necessary.
An honest disagreement, but this particular meeting is significant. On a digital recording, made by a pastor without Johnson's knowledge, Johnson says that although he could make 'no guarantee,' justices had told him the state Supreme Court would not hear a challenge to the marriage statute.
'Members of the Supreme Court, I know all of them. I've had a number of visits with them about our law. All of them, every one of them,' Johnson said. He quoted (by name) a justice as saying 'Dean, we all stand for election, too. We are not going to touch it (current law).' He generalized the response of other justices as: 'Dean, we're not going to do this. We're not going to do this.'
Here's the problem. The coin of the judicial realm is trust. Respect for law begins and ends with public perception that judges, regardless of their personal views, render impartial judgments based on the law. Justices do not pre-judge cases in public. They do not say how they might rule in a specific case. They do not discuss specifics of cases that might come before them — even to Senate majority leaders. To do so is a serious breach of judicial ethics." Source: Pioneer Press, March 15, 1006
5 Comments:
Wow. Of course, Dean Johnson has proven over time that his word means next to nothing. Still, wow.
So what isn't being illegally recorded by the Government and Republicans today?
I'm sure if this was illegal the article would have mentioned it. Nice try, though.
"ReaganBlows said...
So what isn't being illegally recorded by the Government and Republicans today?"
Yes monitoring international calls of terrorists is a bad thing to the party of traitors.
Well heaven forbid we follow laws in this country, what do they think this place is? a democracy?
Oh yeah and by the way even though the GOP controls Congress and the White House, all our problems can be blamed on the Democrats... They are the ones taking away our Freedom and spending like there is no tomorrow...
Post a Comment
<< Home