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

[The Evil Genius]

Are Liberatarians and Liberals the same?

If not, it would perhaps be more accurate to call the judge (originally nominated by Reagan and officially nominated by George H.W. Bush) a liberatarian activist.

:evilg:

But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of ND's ranting.

[Madison Redskin]

NavyDave,

Thank you for illustrating one of my points. I said that when conservative courts overturn legislation, they are "upholding the Constitution," but when liberal courts do the same thing, they are engaged in judicial activism.

You then said that the courts that overturned gun legislation in DC and Chicago were "accurately interpreting the Constitution" (i.e., upholding the Constitution). But, surprisingly, you then asked what kind of legislation are courts overturning. How about, for example, the gun legislation in DC and Chicago.

[NavyDave]

Are Liberatarians and Liberals the same?

If not, it would perhaps be more accurate to call the judge (originally nominated by Reagan and officially nominated by George H.W. Bush) a liberatarian activist.

:evilg:

But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of ND's ranting.

Where did I say that Reagan or Bush the elder only nominated Conservative judges?

Dubba ya almost appointed a Kagan type until he was forced to dump her for a true conservative by conservatives.

Heck Reagan had advisors that were not 100% conservative and the GOP back then was liberal lite which is in essence what it is today when you look at those in the beltway.

[NavyDave]

NavyDave,

You then said that the courts that overturned gun legislation in DC and Chicago were "accurately interpreting the Constitution" (i.e., upholding the Constitution). But, surprisingly, you then asked what kind of legislation are courts overturning. How about, for example, the gun legislation in DC and Chicago.

The Gun Bans in DC and Chicago were unconstitutional since they prevented the right of law abiding citizens to own a gun THE 2nd AMENDMENT. That is not judicial activism.

The real activism was the 4 liberal judges who voted no.

[mjah]

Thank you for illustrating one of my points. I said that when conservative courts overturn legislation, they are "upholding the Constitution," but when liberal courts do the same thing, they are engaged in judicial activism.

You then said that the courts that overturned gun legislation in DC and Chicago were "accurately interpreting the Constitution" (i.e., upholding the Constitution). But, surprisingly, you then asked what kind of legislation are courts overturning. How about, for example, the gun legislation in DC and Chicago.

You don't really think he uses context to correct the adjustment knobs before firing up that Rant-O-Matic, do you?

[Larry]

Ah, extrapolating a specific ruling to include a tangential one are we?

Nope.

1) Reading the decision.

2) Correcting people when other people attempt, after the fact, to alter the decision to say something it doesn't.

Here's some highlights. (Source: Wikipedia. The indented text is quotes from the actual ruling.)

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision, dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the court wrote:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival

.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

The Supreme Court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.

Despite this Supreme Court ruling, such laws remained on the books, although unenforceable, in several states until 2000, when Alabama became the last state to repeal its law against mixed-race marriage.

Also pointing out the text I've highlighted in green, and the often-used attempt to claim that "banning same sex marriages isn't discrimination. It tells everybody which sex they can marry". However, I'll also observe that that portion came from Wiki, not from the SC.

[NavyDave]

You don't really think he uses context to correct the adjustment knobs before firing up that Rant-O-Matic, do you?

How is it that liberals can claim that killing unborn babies is a right that is in the Constitution and then with a straight face totally ignore the second amendment then when it is accurately interpreted call it activism?

[Larry]

I am going to fall down on the slippery slope . . .

(Imagining TEG rolling down a slippery slope, yelling "As . . You . . . Wish".)

Mawwaige.

Mawwaige if dat whish vwings us togevver, today.

[Madison Redskin]

The Gun Bans in DC and Chicago were unconstitutional since they prevented the right of law abiding citizens to own a gun THE 2nd AMENDMENT. That is not judicial activism.

The real activism was the 4 liberal judges who voted no.

Would you please elaborate on what you think constitutes "judicial activism?" Your posts suggest that you think that a court is engaged in judicial activism when they say something you don't like and a court is engaged in "upholding the Constitution" when they say something you like. In short:

Navy Dave No Likey = "Judicial Activism"

Navy Dave Likey = "Upholding the Constitution"

I simply can't believe that someone would swallow that ****, even if it's **** they pooped out.

[Larry]

The Gun Bans in DC and Chicago were unconstitutional since they prevented the right of law abiding citizens to own a gun THE 2nd AMENDMENT. That is not judicial activism.

The real activism was the 4 liberal judges who voted no.

Whereas, the 14th Amendment, well, that's different.

[SoCalSkins]

Ummm, I think they would have been rather perplexed, since Proposition 8 was adopted into California law by California voters.

With massive funding by the Mormon Church in Utah.

[mjah]

How is it that liberals can claim that killing unborn babies is a right that is in the Constitution and then with a straight face totally ignore the second amendment then when it is accurately interpreted call it activism?

I suggest you ask one. But since this question is clearly based on your personal views, let me make sure I understand it.

- If you, NavyDave, agree with the interpretation, then it's "accurate."

- If you, NavyDave, disagree with the interpretation, then you don't understand how others could support it "with a straight face."

Given that your interpretation is only one of a million possible Constitution-based views -- a fact which hopefully you know very well by this point -- why are you even asking this question?

You should be able to answer it on your own: "Because not everybody agrees with me."

The Onion: "There are a terrifying number of opinions out there that are not mine."

[aREDSKIN]

Nope.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival..."

How does gay marriage fit this frame??

[Larry]

With massive funding by the Mormon Church in Utah.

And everybody knows that under our system of Justice, whoever pays to rig an election gets to pick the judge who rules on the election.

[Madison Redskin]

How does gay marriage fit this frame??

It's a "basic right" of man and, at least the last time I checked, the gheys are human.

As for marriage being essential to our existence and survival, the court was referring to the fact that marriage is an institution that is of obvious importance to individuals' identities. I doubt the Court meant that, absent marriage, people would be unable to procreate.

[twa]

Nope.

1) Reading the decision.

2) Correcting people when other people attempt, after the fact, to alter the decision to say something it doesn't.

Also pointing out the text I've highlighted in green, and the often-used attempt to claim that "banning same sex marriages isn't discrimination. It tells everybody which sex they can marry". However, I'll also observe that that portion came from Wiki, not from the SC.

You are claiming something the ruling doesn't by changing the definition of marriage to something other than what the court used.

What was marriage in their eyes and in common usage at the time of the ruling?...a minor sticking point;)

They may well rule gender discrimination is as applicable as race in marriage,but the case you cite does not support that.

[NavyDave]

Back on topic, There are already Civil Unions all over the place where there are rights and benefits similar to normal marriage.

You can visit the sick partner in the hospital, etc.

But as predicted that was not good enough.

[Hersh]

Back on topic, There are already Civil Unions all over the place where there are rights and benefits similar to normal marriage.

You can visit the sick partner in the hospital, etc.

But as predicted that was not good enough.

God forbid they want equal rights.

[NavyDave]

I suggest you ask one. But since this question is clearly based on your personal views, let me make sure I understand it.

- If you, NavyDave, agree with the interpretation, then it's "accurate."

- If you, NavyDave, disagree with the interpretation, then you don't understand how others could support it "with a straight face."

[/url]

Lets stop pretending to be a 5 watt light bulb.

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

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 2008 and 2010 clarified the scope of the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. It further held that three Washington, D.C. ordinances banning usable firearms in the home were in violation of the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Court determined that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority.[1] The Supreme Court also stated that its ruling was not to be taken as an indication that all firearm restrictions are unconstitutional.

[Madison Redskin]

You are claiming something the ruling doesn't by changing the definition of marriage to something other than what the court used.

What was marriage in their eyes and in common usage at the time of the ruling?...a minor sticking point;)

They may well rule gender discrimination is as applicable as race in marriage,but the case you cite does not support that.

Marriage isn't a static institution. It's meaning has changed tremendously over the years. Until the early part of the 20th century, marriage was essentially a transaction that resulted in the transfer of property. Women were akin to chattel who had to be subservient to their husbands. Until the latter half of the 20th century, no one would have argued that the right to marry included the right to marry a person of another race. Interracial marriage was viewed as immoral and the concepts of marriage and preservation of racial purity were inextricably intertwined.

I would argue that, today, marriage represents a bond between two consenting adults that offers the adults special state recognition which is accompanied by a variety of rights. Admittedly, to many, marriage inherently means a union between a man and a woman. But, I would venture to guess that in 25 years, the link between the two will be rather weak.

Perhaps that won't please a lot of people, who are convinced that our country is going to hell in a hand basket. I would beg to differ. Exactly when has the extension of civil rights to groups that have been discriminated against hurt our country, despite loud protests about the "immoralization" of society?

[Madison Redskin]

Back on topic, There are already Civil Unions all over the place where there are rights and benefits similar to normal marriage.

You can visit the sick partner in the hospital, etc.

But as predicted that was not good enough.

So, as long as we extend rights to homosexuals that are on par with the rights the rest of us enjoy, the gheys should STFU?

[Thiebear]

Techincally

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival..."

This is a religious statement saying you need to be married to have children and fundamental to existence and survival.

Gay marriage meet neither goal.. especially of the religious.

Then again either does the barren woman or the guy with the narrow urethra.

Then the new testament came out and was more forgiving...

[Prosperity]

Techincally

This is a religious statement saying you need to be married to have children and fundamental to existence and survival.

Gay marriage meet neither goal.. especially of the religious.

Then again either does the barren woman or the guy with the narrow urethra.

Then the new testament came out and was more forgiving...

there can be other thinngs fundamental to our existence and survival other than children right?

maybe marriage is an important social institution for other reasons too

[Larry]

Techincally

This is a religious statement saying you need to be married to have children and fundamental to existence and survival.

Actually, that is a legal statement from the US Supreme Court, stating that even though the word "marriage" is not listed specifically in the Constitution as a protected right, that it is one, anyway.

(The Supreme Court doesn't rule on religion. Or at least, they aren't supposed to.)

[skinfan133]

Some people here seem to favor mob rule. (As long as the mob is on their side).

That's why I hate democracy, and that's why we aren't one despite the overwhelming use of the term today. A constitutional republic is anything but a real democracy.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -TJ

Once we started believing we were a democracy, horrible things like California's ballot initiative process appeared. Good luck getting rid of it too.