Idaho Examiner: New York Case Highlights Importance of State Supreme Court Race "My Idaho...My Planet Rocks!"

Idahoans will be choosing between Joel Horton and John Bradbury for a seat on the Idaho Supreme Court on May 27, and the importance of that vote was highlighted yesterday by a ruling from the highest court in New York State.

Idahoans should be looking for justices who will not legislate from the bench but rather apply the constitution and the laws established through the legislative process. You may decide for yourself which of the two candidates most fits that profile by visiting the Gem State Voter Guide here.

A federal court ruled yesterday that judicial candidates, such as Horton and Bradbury, do have the right to respond to voter guide questionnaires. Idaho voters should be pleased that these two candidates have done so, despite the disapproval of the clubby legal establishment in the Gem State.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of judicial candidates to respond to questionnaires, by overturning a Minnesota rule that prohibited them from “announcing their views on disputed legal or political issues.”

New York’s Court of Appeals let stand a lower court ruling that essentially legalizes gay marriages in the Empire State, as long as they are performed in a jurisdiction like Massachusetts or Canada where same-sex marriage is legal.

A state judge had ruled in 2006 that state law “currently defines marriage as limited to the union of one man and one woman,” and tossed a suit seeking to gain recognition for a marriage performed in Canada.. He was overturned by an appellate court, and that ruling was allowed to stand by the high court.

This latest ruling is likely to put additional pressure on the state legislature to formally legalize gay “marriages” performed in the state itself.

John McCain declared yesterday that, if president, he will appoint justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in the mold of John Roberts and Sam Alito (although he once said privately that Alito was too “conservative” for his taste).

Said McCain, “With a presumption that would have amazed the framers of our Constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Often, political causes are brought before the courts that could not succeed by democratic means, and some federal judges are eager to oblige.”

“My nominees,” added McCain, “will understand that there are clear limits to the scope of judicial power, and clear limits to the scope of federal power.”

This will certainly distinguish McCain from Sen. Obama (or Sen. Clinton) in the November election, since Obama was one of just 22 senators to vote against John Roberts, and both Democrat candidates have promised to make pro-abortion convictions a litmus test for any nominee to the Court.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council commended McCain for his remarks, saying, “Senator McCain’s speech will be well-received by millions of Americans alarmed by activist judges who undermine the rule of law by legislating from the bench.”