[box]
Last week the highest court in Massachusetts rejected an appeal to have the new child support guidelines introduced by the Chief Justice for Administration in 2009 repealed. Fathers and Families, along with a handful of individual fathers challenged the new guidelines saying that they were promulgated through unconstitutional means having originated in an exclusive judicial committee. F&F has had much success in changing state laws via legislative lobbying but not so much through the judicial process.
Boston.com quotes Fathers and Families:
“The New Guidelines were approved by an unconstitutional and illegal process, through formulation by a secret judicial committee, and by unilateral imposition of the Chief Justice for Administration and Management,’’ the fathers’ group wrote in their brief. “The application of the New Guidelines will extract large amounts of money from these plaintiffs in an unfair, inequitable and unequal manner. ‘’
The court’s reasoning for the rejection of the appeal was that individual plaintiffs can appeal on a case by case basis as to the unconstitutionality of their judgments. This is an odd case of the judiciary making law (instead of simply determining constitutionality of it) and then telling plaintiffs to come to them if they feel their rights were compromised. This is a clear departure from the idea of a three branch system of government where the Judicial Branch doesn’t make law but simply determines its constitutionality.
Sources:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1362972&format=comments#CommentsArea
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?page_id=22
[/box]
