CNN: California ban on same-sex marriage struck down

[Henry]

Second, this court is not known as crazy "judicial activists," not in the least. It is the most respected and most widely followed (by other courts) state court in the nation. However, these judges are required to interpret the California Constitution and enforce it. That is their job.

I really really really ... really ... hate the term 'judicial activism.'

It's a term coined by partisans to disparage rulings they don't like. It's disrespectful of our system of goverment, which since the adoption of the Constitution required the judiciary to interpret laws passed by the legislature against it.

Judges aren't supposed to care about the will of the people. That's the job of the legislature. Judges are supposed to care about the rule of law. Supreme Court Justices are supposed to care about the Constitution. If you think 'the will of the people' somehow trumps the constitution then amend the constitution or don't bother to have a supreme court. But don't blame the judges for doing what they are supposed to be doing.

[Predicto]

Uh, I'll confess that, when I think of judicial activism, that one doesn't even make the first cut, to me.

For what I think of as a better example, I'd point to the recent USSC ruling that if California grows marijuana for the purpose of giving it to someone in California, then they're engaging in "interstate commerce".

Don't confuse "judicial activism" with "any decision that I didn't like the result in."

They are not the same thing.

Judicial activism is when a court uses a constitutional provision to override a statute supported by the majority of the electorate. Such as overruling segregation in schools, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of southern voters favored segregation.

Roe v. Wade is another good example.

[Thiebear]

What people don't realize:

Fine, have you're civil unions done by the state.

Fine, have you're marriages done by the church.

NO FU thats not a compromise WE want everything and god help you if you decide not to marry us in your church, we will sue your ass off..

(Which in turn goes so far it actually hurts the cause)

kinda like:

San Francisco would become the first city in the nation to ban the sale of tobacco in pharmacies if legislation that was quietly introduced by Mayor Gavin Newsom is approved.

(It's going to go so far that its going to hurt the cause).

Kinda like:

Adding illegal immigration to the war bill: Going to far......

You religious types make up 83%, but you gotta have atheists tell you whats the right thing to do all the time.. its a shame really.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Don't confuse "judicial activism" with "any decision that I didn't like the result in."

They are not the same thing.

Judicial activism is when a court uses a constitutional provision to override a statute supported by the majority of the electorate. Such as overruling segregation in schools, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of southern voters favored segregation.

Roe v. Wade is another good example.

not saying you are wrong, but where do you get that definition?

I think of judicial activism as when a judge, or judges, "read into" the constitution for something that is not expressly there, even if it is there implicitly.

[Predicto]

not saying you are wrong, but where do you get that definition?

I think of judicial activism as when a judge, or judges, "read into" the constitution for something that is not expressly there, even if it is there implicitly.

I don't think there is a precise legal definition, and yours is as good as mine.

I still think the Brown v. Board of Education is the most famous and significant example under either definition, followed closely by Roe v. Wade.

[JMS]

Don't confuse "judicial activism" with "any decision that I didn't like the result in."

They are not the same thing.

Judicial activism is when a court uses a constitutional provision to override a statute supported by the majority of the electorate. Such as overruling segregation in schools, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of southern voters favored segregation.

Roe v. Wade is another good example.

Social activism is a spurious label. The courts are there to interpret the law and any interpretation which conflicts with popular belief can be called activism.

From when the Supreme court decided the Florida Election overruling the Florida Court.

To when the Supreme court judge argues torture isn't punishment thus changing the meaning of the Constitution provision against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, which for 200 years, stood against such governmental abuses.

Bottom line is I have a label to be put on Homosexuals who pay their taxes and abey the laws. CITIZENS.... I don't want our government denying rights to citizens based upon prejudices and bigotry of a vocal minority. Good on the court for agreeing with me. Doesn't happen very offen in the 21 century when political leaders actually implemnt enlightenned 20th century thinking rather than 18ths century outdated bigotry....

[The Sisko]

I don't care what TSF and Yusuf does with their domestic partners in those bath houses.

However when the will of the people is overruled by 4 judges to push an agenda that is universally seen as deviant, morally corrupt, people have a right to be outraged.

Trust me, Mrs. 06 is way more than a "domestic partner" and if she caught me in a bath house...we'll, let's just say it wouldn't be pretty.

As for the will of the people, are you still going to respect the will of the people when Hispanics (yes, legal immigrants that is) outnumber English speakers and decide to put a referendum on the ballot to make Spanish the official language of the U.S. ? We'll see how much complaining goes on about so-called "judicial activism" then.

The bottom line is that a whole class of people were/are being denied a basic right that were it not for their sexual orientation, conservatives would be dying to promote and protect. While I'm not gay, I can certainly understand how unfair and wrong it would feel to be denied the opportunity to partake in a right granted others for no other reason than because some people found me to be a "deviant".

Ponder this for a bit ND. Most of you fundies have such a problem with homosexuality not only because it's condemed in the Bible but also because you consider it a lifestyle choice. What are you going to fall back on when science proves, as seems the case, that homosexuality isn't a choice but a genetic predisposition? Such a discovery would make discriminating against them no different than doing so based on race, sex, national origin or anything else beyond a person's control.

Oh, and stop calling me a liberal. As I pointed out earlier, the GOP has lost it's way when it comes to the whole "that government is best that governs least...except when Pat Robertson says we should keep our thumbs on them" thing. I just so happen to believe in leaving people alone to govern their own lives when they're not infringing on the rights of others...even if it means *GASP!* they'll use that freedom to do something I don't necessarily agree with or believe in. However, you're more than welcome to explain for everyone how you're in any way damaged by two people of the same sex being allowed to marry each other.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Trust me, Mrs. 06 is way more than a "domestic partner" and if she caught me in a bath house...we'll, let's just say it wouldn't be pretty.

didn't you know you and i are gay together now because we don't feel harmed by gay people getting married.

honestly too, i think you and I disagree way more than we agree, but agreeing on anything that ND disagrees with makes you a dirty gay liberal.

Ponder this for a bit ND. Most of you fundies have such a problem with homosexuality not only because it's condemed in the Bible but also because you consider it a lifestyle choice..

also because of latent homosexuality boiling up.

[Larry]

Don't confuse "judicial activism" with "any decision that I didn't like the result in."

They are not the same thing.

Judicial activism is when a court uses a constitutional provision to override a statute supported by the majority of the electorate. Such as overruling segregation in schools, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of southern voters favored segregation.

Roe v. Wade is another good example.

Then you and I seem to have different opinions of the term.

Your definition seems to be "any decision that the majority doesn't like the result in".

In my dictionary, judicial activism is "any decision where I go :wtf:"

I agree with the result in Roe. But for the life of me I fail to see how the terms "abortion" and "right to privacy" have anything to do with each other.

(And yes, I do believe the Constitution provides a Right to Privacy. It just doesn't have anything to do with abortion.)

As another example, overruling the Florida SC in Bush v. Gore, on the grounds that the Florida court failed to invent, from the bench, a uniform, statewide criteria for counting ballots, sure appears to me to be a case where they came up with a result they wanted, then tried to find a way to justify the decision.

[The Sisko]

A little Keith Haring just for you Navy Dave.

[skinfan133]

Oh for shame. I completely agree with the sentiment here, but the process is so wrong. for one thing, correct me if I'm wrong, a State Supreme court is not allowed to rule on Federal conmstitutional issues, only a federal district court can do that, so if they used the 14th amendment, shame on them.

secondly, this is a classic example of destroying the legislatures power. instead of legislating through their descision, the court should have sent the issue to the legislature to be reconsidered.

thirdly, while I believe all types of couples should either get the same tax exemptions and rights, or non at all, I am strictly against the use of the term maraige. thats a word and definition that i strictly religious, and because the state isn't allowed to interfer in the sphere of the church, the court should not have redefined the term "maraige," nor should they have called it a fundamental civil right, because it's not.

:2cents:

[JosephGibbs]

A little Keith Haring just for you Navy Dave.

Isn't that the symbol for an organization called best buddies which matches people up to befriend people who are mentally challenged. Looks similar from what I recall

[Larry]

Oh for shame. I completely agree with the sentiment here, but the process is so wrong. for one thing, correct me if I'm wrong, a State Supreme court is not allowed to rule on Federal conmstitutional issues, only a federal district court can do that, so if they used the 14th amendment, shame on them.

I'm not a lawyer, but the US Constitution is "the supreme law of the land". If a state passes a law that isn't allowed under the US Constitution, then that law doesn't exist. My opinion is that a state court doesn't have the authority to ignore the US Constitution.

(And, FWIW, I understand that the California court ruled that the ban violates California's Constitution.)

secondly, this is a classic example of destroying the legislatures power. instead of legislating through their descision, the court should have sent the issue to the legislature to be reconsidered.

Sorry again, but what the court ruled was that the legislature (or, I think, in this case, the voters, in a ballot initiative) doesn't have the authority to violate the Constitution. There is no "You don't have the authority to do that, so do it again."

[The Sisko]

Isn't that the symbol for an organization called best buddies which matches people up to befriend people who are mentally challenged. Looks similar from what I recall

I've never heard of that group however I don't think so. The print I posted is untitled but looks very similar to one called "Best Buddies".

I love Keith Haring's work. He was a heck of an artist.

[Stadium-Armory]

Bottom line is I have a label to be put on Homosexuals who pay their taxes and abey the laws. CITIZENS.... I don't want our government denying rights to citizens based upon prejudices and bigotry of a vocal minority. Good on the court for agreeing with me. Doesn't happen very offen in the 21 century when political leaders actually implemnt enlightenned 20th century thinking rather than 18ths century outdated bigotry....

Agreed.

I for one.. hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are create equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.