USA Today - California's Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage ruled unconstitutional

[Burgold]

I was disappointed when the people of California voted for the measure. I am more disappointed though, that a judge saw fit to take it upon himself to overturn something that the people voted for.

Take it up with the Founding Fathers. That's the check on the legislative process that they decided was needed. It's a very useful thing. Mob rule... or more kindly majority rule, while often wise and benign, can also be dangerous and vindictive.

I've seen this quote a couple of times in this thread and others. It baffles me. That's the point of the courts. That's their function.

[Larry]

I was disappointed when the people of California voted for the measure. I am more disappointed though, that a judge saw fit to take it upon himself to overturn something that the people voted for.

Because everybody knows that "whatever the people vote for" is more important that "the US Constitution".

[Stugein]

I've seen this quote a couple of times in this thread and others. It baffles me. That's the point of the courts. That's their function.

Sure. And when it comes down to it there is nothing illegal or "wrong" about what he did. Personally though, for me, I don't think judges should insert themselves into the legislative process when something is enacted through a vote by the people. If some measure comes out of the legislature, or congress, or a city council mandate or something and it doesn't grok with existing law or constitutionality I have no problem with a judge stepping in. But when something is voted on and passed by the people directly, that item should have applied to it a much higher degree of fortification against such actions by a court.

I'm not an expert and I'm not overly familiar with the legislative process or the nuances of how state legislatures work or states rights v federal or anything. I'm not a political guy, ya know? I am fully aware that I am likely to be killed on any related argument I try to make here. All I have is a personal sense of right and wrong, and a general sense of when something doesn't feel "right". This doesn't feel "right". I was not a fan of Prop 8 before it was passed. Still not. But the idea that a judge could just take something that I want, that the people want, that the majority voted for and passed and just wipe out the result of that will..well frankly it makes me not want to bother voting anymore.

[twa]

Because everybody knows that "whatever the people vote for" is more important that "the US Constitution".

That vote is part of the Constitution...as is the amendment process you are disparaging.

You are getting ahead of the judicial process while at the same time condemning the constitutional amendment process .

Ya can't pick and choose

[Burgold]

Stugein,

I can understand that, but what if the people are wrong?

What if in the 90's with all the AIDs fear a community voted by popular vote that no homosexual will be allowed to have a medical licence and that all currently having medical licences will not be allowed to practice because gay people touching you will give you AIDS?

Should a court not have a say in that?

Jim Crow laws were hugely popular and I bet if you had states voting in the '60's and even 70's desegregation would have been hugely unpopular. Should they through popular vote be able to institute white only neighborhoods, businesses, waterfountains, schools, etc?

Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's reasonable or right. Much of the time the majority does things that are smart and just, but not always. I mean seriously look how many Cowboy and Eagles fans there are in the world. Sometimes, they are ruled by fear, prejudice, or hate. That's why we need an impartial court to review the fairness of all laws.

At least that's the way I view it.

[Larry]

That vote is part of the Constitution...as is the amendment process you are disparaging.

You are getting ahead of the judicial process while at the same time condemning the constitutional amendment process .

Ya can't pick and choose

That vote is part of the state Constitution

"All citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law" is part of the US Constitution.

There is a procedure for overriding the US Constitution.

"52% of the voters in California" isn't the procedure.

[twa]

That vote and the states right to determine marriage requirements is in the US Constitution....a MINOR detail you want to overlook.

[IHOPSkins]

Because everybody knows that "whatever the people vote for" is more important that "the US Constitution".

Larry,

All levels of this issue have concenerd themselves with its constitutionality...Including the authors

It might go to the Supreme Court for a final decision

Unfortunetaly the Democrats created a monster when they "BORKed" a fully qualified judge due only to Political reasons,

and left this Body more open to Partisan attack and less likely to hold the respect of us all

Next time you vote for a Liberal, thank them for this little piece of history

[Larry]

That vote and the states right to determine marriage requirements is in the US Constitution....a MINOR detail you want to overlook.

Tell ya what.

You quote me the part of the US Constitution that says, in writing, that the states have the authority to treat some citizens differently from others, if a simple majority of the state supports it.

I'll quote the part that says that all citizens are entitled to equal treatment. Whether the state wants to treat them equally or not.

Who you figure will win that contest?

[Larry]

Larry,

All levels of this issue have concenerd themselves with its constitutionality...Including the authors

Really?

That's funny. I could have sworn that I'd seen several posts, just in this thread alone, who seem stunned that "the will of the people" wasn't more important than "The US Constitution".

In fact, I haven't checked, but I'm willing to be that there isn't one single post in this thread which mentions "the will of the people", that even admits that the US Constitution exists.

Unfortunetaly the Democrats created a monster when they "BORKed" a fully qualified judge due only to Political reasons,

and left this Body more open to Partisan attack and less likely to hold the respect of us all

Next time you vote for a Liberal, thank them for this little piece of history

I'm trying to think of something I could possibly say that would be as meaningless as what you just posted. But I'm having trouble thinking of one. Maybe I could say that this is all because of Reagan's tax cuts, or something.

[Burgold]

Unfortunetaly the Democrats created a monster when they "BORKed" a fully qualified judge due only to Political reasons, and left this Body more open to Partisan attack and less likely to hold the respect of us all

Next time you vote for a Liberal, thank them for this little piece of history

Which judge got Borked? Just curious who you are referring to?

[twa]

Been over this before...people can and are treated differently(unequally) under our laws...Deny that if ya can:evilg:

in the meantime Hernandez v. Robles trumps Judge Walker until ruled otherwise

[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[

It will be interesting to see played out in the courts.

I would prefer the legislative solution we have discussed before,but for that the congresscritters would have to have balls.

[IHOPSkins]

I'm trying to think of something I could possibly say that would be as meaningless.....

You made a point about the importance of the constitutionality of a law (nobody has mentioned the Constitution WAHHHH)......I made the point that its not as credible as you like to think

Its MORE of a political decision now thanks to Democrats (a partisan BORKing)

Its meaningless to liberals because they choose to denegrate the Supreme Court (Like the Bush Decision) but exercise forgetfullness about the part they played in chiping away at its credability when they made members more open to political attack

Now, if YOU continue to think this point is meaningless.....maybe YOU should look to the credability of YOUR point

HTTR

[IHOPSkins]

Which judge got Borked? Just curious who you are referring to?

Many Now thanks to Democrats

Bork as verb

According to columnist William Safire, the first published use of bork as a verb was "possibly" The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987. Safire defines to bork by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before."[22]

Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said,

"We're going to bork him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

[Burgold]

Ah, so no one's gotten borked recently. You were just talking in general terms and carrying decades old grudges. Gotcha.

[DRSmith]

Does it matter that this ruling was based on a previous SCOTUS ruling from the 40's?

[twa]

Does it matter that this ruling was based on a previous SCOTUS ruling from the 40's?

Not if the ruling is found wanting, there were rulings the other way as well eh?

Walker made numerous assumptions...we will see if SCOTUS agrees eventually.

[IHOPSkins]

Ah, so no one's gotten borked recently. You were just talking in general terms and carrying decades old grudges. Gotcha.

Not Recent?

You do realize that the changes started by DEMOCRATS during the BORK hearing effect nominations today?

And that Previous Nominees that sit on the court TODAY are products of "BORKings"?

Democrats POLITIZIED the process and helped to de-legitimize the institution

I think you know this

Sucks to be reminded that Democrats made TODAYS process worse.....doesn't it

and again the point was being made that Opinions and the Law are seperate....I was just pointing out how THANKS TO LIBERALS the line between the two are now closer

But you are correct....From what I hear.....Kagan could use a good BORKing :yikes:

[aREDSKIN]

Been over this before...people can and are treated differently(unequally) under our laws...Deny that if ya can:evilg:

in the meantime Hernandez v. Robles trumps Judge Walker until ruled otherwise

[T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. [...] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[

So the gay judge ignores precedence?? Why? Because he's directly affected by his judicial decision? Isn't the American justice system just great? Man this judge should have been recused. I could care less about GM but this judge was CLEARLY biased in deciding this case.

[Burgold]

Did they? Do you think that Bork was the first nominee who ever got borked? Do you really think that politics in the Judiciary started with Reagan? That's a marvelously preposterous position to take.

Besides, even though Bork got borked. Bork was a poor choice. Not as bad as Harriet Myers who I suspect you also thought got borked, but pretty bad nontheless.

[aREDSKIN]

Ah, so no one's gotten borked recently. You were just talking in general terms and carrying decades old grudges. Gotcha.

The arrogant double standard dismissal by a liberal. Wow where have we seen this before?? Just everyday.

[Burgold]

The arrogant double standard dismissal by a liberal. Wow where have we seen this before?? Just everyday.

His first quote made me think that a nominee or someone had recently gotten "borked" which confused me esp. on a federal level since it's hard for a minority to pull off a good borking.

Plus isn't the true arrogant double standard those shouting.... small limited government. The government has only a few very minor roles... and then shouting... we need laws telling who can marry, we need laws governing the bedroom, we need laws protecting people from smut and obsenity, etc.

[DRSmith]

Not if the ruling is found wanting, there were rulings the other way as well eh?

Walker made numerous assumptions...we will see if SCOTUS agrees eventually.

In 2010, the value Judge Walker saw in the Jehovah's Witness case was how Justice Robert Jackson in 1943 addressed the "tyranny of the majority," a problem that's been around since at least 1835 when Alexis de Tocqueville first wrote the phrase in his book, Democracy in America.

The 1940 Supreme Court used "national unity" to justify forcing kids to salute the flag. It also said the threat of being expelled from school was a good way to achieve compliance. If anyone felt put out, the court said, he could seek remedy at the ballot box by asking the majority to see it his way.

When Justice Jackson got the chance to reverse the 1940 ruling, he tackled the ballot box notion head-on. He wrote that the "very purpose" of the Bill of Rights was to protect some issues from the volatility of politics and "place them beyond the reach of majorities."

"One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly," Jackson said, "may not be submitted to vote."

Rights trump elections

Judge Walker used Jackson's line in striking down the 52% majority vote that had taken away the fundamental right of gay and lesbian couples to marry in California.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-08-06-engardio05_ST_N.htm

[twa]

That is if you accept his reasoning that SSM IS a fundamental right that is not subject to restriction.

A ruling that is new at the federal level and far from settled law.

or we would not be having this little discussion eh?

[IHOPSkins]

.......Besides, even though Bork got borked. Bork was a poor choice. Not as bad as Harriet Myers.......

Partisan Much?

Thanks for making my point