Activist Judges

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by OCA, Feb 18, 2004.

  1. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
  2. Scourge
    Online

    Scourge Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Sometimes certain principles are contradictory between constitutions and laws. Plus the 'spirit' of the law must be taken into account when reviewing a law or changing one. Perhaps when the law was made, other issues were top-of-mind... anyhow, anyone who is old enough and sane enough to engage in a legal partnership and consents should be able to marry.
    I mean if the majority was gay in this country, they wouldn't have a right to tell me who to marry... not that I would ask permission anyhow.
     
  3. DKSuddeth
    Offline

    DKSuddeth Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    5,175
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Texas
    Ratings:
    +62
    both sides have their judicial activists, thats why judge owens isn't receiving her vote.

    Not all laws are just nor are they constitutionally sound when compared against the bill of rights. Thats what the courts are for, to protect the minority from the majority.
     
  4. OCA
    Offline

    OCA Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2004
    Messages:
    7,014
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    Ratings:
    +223
    The fact of the matter though was that it wasn't this mayor's job to interpret the law as he saw. Let it go through the courts first. On that note all these marriages should be stopped and nullified until further notice.
     
  5. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    If the state constitution defines marriage as a contract between a man and a woman (which it does), there's not much room for interpretation, or divining the "spirit of the law," or conjuring up a contradiction. And if there was a contradiction between state law and the constitution, the constitution would win out anyway!

    As far as gay marriages, I think I've stated my points before, but I don't think that they should be legal. This goes way beyond "what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom," as so many are fond of saying. This is extending legal rights to people who choose to engage in a certain behavior. They can still get married, if they so desire - any man can marry a woman, and any woman can marry any man. And if they want to give power of attorney rights to each other, or buy a house together, they can already do that. There is no reason to allow same-sex marriages, and I am glad that they are being opposed everywhere they are attempted.
     
  6. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    Massachussets and California have no such Constitutional amendments. The court in Massachussets decided that the state's Constitution demanded equal protection under the law, and thus the state could not deny the right to marry based upon sexual orientation. Massachussets will have to amend it's constitution to deny gay people marriage. California has a similar problem. There is a state law defining marriage, but the state's Constitution demands equal protection under the law like Massachussets. California courts are already preparing to hear this issue, but this time it's gay marriage opponents filing the case. Activists judges are on both sides. Look at the U.S. Supreme Court - William Rehnquists is BY FAR the most activist Chief Justice we've had. He, along with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, has consistently used the power of the Supreme Court to advance his right-wing conservative political agenda. See Bush vs. Gore if you don't believe me.

    acludem
     
  7. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    There is a huge difference between equal protection under the law and complete avoidance of prohibiting behavior. There are no rights being violated by same sex marriage restrictions as marriage is not a right - it's a contract. Furthermore, behavioral restrictions are certainly constitutional in this country.

    I fail to see how the case on the election was in any way avoidance of the law in favor of a political objective.
     
  8. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Moi - you are really playing a game of sophistry.

    Equal protection under the law involves the liberty to enter into legally recognized contracts.

    That is all a marriage is from the governmental point of view.
     
  9. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Does this equal protection afford someone the right to break the law?
     
  10. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    And you are playing a game of boring repitition. There is no equal protection argument. Gay men are entitled to marry JUST THE SAME AS A STRAIGHT MAN. Gay women are entitled to marry JUST THE SAME AS A STRAIGT ONE. There is no difference in the application of the law between one single man and one single woman.

    There is certainly no "equal protection under the law to enter into contracts" no matter how hard you truly wish there were. If that were the case, no restrictions on contracts would be permissible. Clearly, that's not the case and contract law is a well-documented, exceedingly complex theatre.
     

Share This Page