Courts now denying Democracy.

[Quantum Windbag]

I snipped off this portion because I think this is EXACTLY what you and the OP (and others) were trying to address here. I'll get back to the rest later when I have time, but I'll tackle this now.

You, the OP and others are saying, in essence, you understand the legal difference but the law and its process make no difference to popular perception - so the perception should win out over law in a court of law.

With all due respect, that is a ridiculous position.

Are we a nation of laws, of due process and the procedures that safeguard us from abuse? Or are we a nation of blowdried halfwit pundits telling us what to think and emotional knee-jerk responses to catch phrases? That sounds harsh and I know it, but think about what you're saying here and how it applies. Then back off and look at it again from your rational side.

The Courts are our last bastion against exactly the sort of mob rule you are advocating here. They operate, believe it or not, under strict procedural and jurisdictional limitations for a reason. Standing is one of those limitations. You may not agree with their decisions, hell I disagree with them as often as anybody else. But disagreeing with their decisions and denying their right to make them or the very existence of the rules by which they make them are two very, very different things.

When you disagree with what Congress does, why aren't you out railing to the heavens about their illegitimacy to pass law? When you disagree with a decision by the POTUS, why aren't you out crying about his illegitimacy to perform his tasks? (Unless you're a birfer, but that's a different thread. )

The Courts are a mystery to most people. The judges are unelected. They have arcane, highly theoretical and complicated procedures and a maze of rules even a lot of attorneys who don't deal with the Federal system on a regular basis can have trouble with. They work from a base of law, equity, history and precedent so vast and complex it seems sometimes they pull what are actually very sound decisions out of thin air. They apply interpretations from a broad range of mainstream paradigms, and there will always be disagreement over which interpretation should be used. Sometimes they screw the pooch royally. And we're told over and over again to fear them, that they're taking away our rights and destroying our principles rather than performing the task of upholding them as best they can against the galloping herd. I get it.

There's nothing I can say to combat the power of the fear machine, I get that too. Who am I but some ghost in the machine? But I will say this: If you can see the legal point, remember the Courts ONLY deal with law. They do not and cannot care about how you feel or perceive, that is not their job and is not within their power and quite frankly it should never be. They exist solely to address that legal point and resolve controversy in a civilized manner according to their rules and limitations. Period.

I said it on another thread to another poster earlier and I'll say it here, learn to separate out the issues.

Why do you keep insisting I am saying something I am not?

Since you insist on discussing a side issue here, I will defend my interpretation of the fact that the vote was nullified. If I voted for a law that only people with that own land get to vote on property taxes, and that law was then challenged by renters who did not like the fact that they now get no say on school spending, and the courts eventually struck down that law for whatever reason, then the end result is that my vote is nullified. It does not ultimately matter if the court decides the vote was wrong because someone who supported the law committed fraud, thus invalidating the vote itself, or he just decides the law is badly written, and thus unenforceable, it still negates my vote by negating the result of the vote.

Please note that this is not an argument that the judge lacks the power to do this, it just is an argument that this is what he is doing. This is not just a perception, it is a fact, even if it is one that makes no difference to the outcome of the case.

Let us now discuss your contention that the courts are the last resort against mob rule. I am willing to admit that this seems to be taught in many schools today, and that there is even some evidence to support this assertion, but that does not make it true.

The truth is that courts have no power to enforce their rulings, and are thus not a defense against anything. If Eisenhower had not ordered out the National Guard to enforce the desegregation ruling in Alabama the schools there might still be segregated.

Courts have even been used to facilitate mob rule, like they did in the Jim Crow era. How does this make them our last line of defense?

This is not about fear, this is about the rule of law. The power of the government comes from the people, it is not imposed on them. I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp, but it is ultimately why I refuse to accept the label of liberal as it is defined today. Everyone has the right, and the ability, to make their own decisions. Liberals toady believe that the government should make decisions for the people, and that most people are not capable of understanding the esoteric rationale behind those decisions.

If the court truly acted the way you are trying to claim it did in this particular instance I would have absolutely no problem with it, but that is not what happened. Judge Walker essentially ruled that over half of the people in California were completely irrational when they voted for Proposition 8. This decision was not based on the rule of law, or anything resembling logic. It was based solely on the perception of the judge that there is no rational basis for this law.

In other words, even though I fully support SSM, this decision offends me because it allows the perceptions of one person to outweigh the decisions of everyone who voted. Even though I think that the people who argue against SSM are wrong, I do recognize that they have some valid points about the way liberal polices have negatively impacted marriage over the years. The idea that the only reason anyone has to oppose SSM is because they are prejudiced against homosexuals is so ridiculous that it shows an inherent bigotry against religious beliefs.

If you want to argue that the courts are mostly fair I will not argue, but do not try to tell me they are our last defense against mob rule, because they are not even a defense against the mob. They often support the mob, and are supporting the fear mongering you claim to oppose with this decision.

 

[goldcatt]

Why do you keep insisting I am saying something I am not?

Since you insist on discussing a side issue here, I will defend my interpretation of the fact that the vote was nullified. If I voted for a law that only people with that own land get to vote on property taxes, and that law was then challenged by renters who did not like the fact that they now get no say on school spending, and the courts eventually struck down that law for whatever reason, then the end result is that my vote is nullified. It does not ultimately matter if the court decides the vote was wrong because someone who supported the law committed fraud, thus invalidating the vote itself, or he just decides the law is badly written, and thus unenforceable, it still negates my vote by negating the result of the vote.

Please note that this is not an argument that the judge lacks the power to do this, it just is an argument that this is what he is doing. This is not just a perception, it is a fact, even if it is one that makes no difference to the outcome of the case.

Let us now discuss your contention that the courts are the last resort against mob rule. I am willing to admit that this seems to be taught in many schools today, and that there is even some evidence to support this assertion, but that does not make it true.

The truth is that courts have no power to enforce their rulings, and are thus not a defense against anything. If Eisenhower had not ordered out the National Guard to enforce the desegregation ruling in Alabama the schools there might still be segregated.

Courts have even been used to facilitate mob rule, like they did in the Jim Crow era. How does this make them our last line of defense?

This is not about fear, this is about the rule of law. The power of the government comes from the people, it is not imposed on them. I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp, but it is ultimately why I refuse to accept the label of liberal as it is defined today. Everyone has the right, and the ability, to make their own decisions. Liberals toady believe that the government should make decisions for the people, and that most people are not capable of understanding the esoteric rationale behind those decisions.

If the court truly acted the way you are trying to claim it did in this particular instance I would have absolutely no problem with it, but that is not what happened. Judge Walker essentially ruled that over half of the people in California were completely irrational when they voted for Proposition 8. This decision was not based on the rule of law, or anything resembling logic. It was based solely on the perception of the judge that there is no rational basis for this law.

In other words, even though I fully support SSM, this decision offends me because it allows the perceptions of one person to outweigh the decisions of everyone who voted. Even though I think that the people who argue against SSM are wrong, I do recognize that they have some valid points about the way liberal polices have negatively impacted marriage over the years. The idea that the only reason anyone has to oppose SSM is because they are prejudiced against homosexuals is so ridiculous that it shows an inherent bigotry against religious beliefs.

If you want to argue that the courts are mostly fair I will not argue, but do not try to tell me they are our last defense against mob rule, because they are not even a defense against the mob. They often support the mob, and are supporting the fear mongering you claim to oppose with this decision.

If I'm misreading, I apologize. But the main theme in the OP and in other posts, including yours, seems to center around the perception that the vote in CA is being nullified. My entire point is that it is not. Perhaps the argument over the function of the courts is a side issue, or perhaps it strikes at the heart of the actual reason people are upset with what's going on in this case. In any case, the rest of the thread seems to have moved on into the same sex marriage argument itself....but I'll respond to your point here.

I'm going back to first principles rather than get bogged down in individual issues. You say you disagree with this ruling because it allows the decision of one person to override the votes of millions of individuals. But I'm trying to point out that is not the case. The trial judge, as representative of the Federal judiciary, found that a portion of the California state constitution was in violation of the COTUS. That's what happened, nothing more. Separate your issues.

The fact that the provision was made part of the CA constitution in the first place was where the vote was honored. Past that point, the law is the same as any other and the same standards apply. The Court hears the arguments, fiinds the facts, applies the law and a decision is reached. There are no judgment calls being made on the voters here. The problem is that the Prop 8 amendment as written and enacted was found to be in violation of the Constitution of the United States by a member of the Federal Judiciary. Period.

I see no problem with what the judge did, he did his job. My only problem is with the State's decision not to appeal, as I do think leaving the question open leaves a wedge to be exploited to the detriment of actual policy concerns. This issue needs to be settled. But I can disagree and still respect that it is their decision and nobody else's to make.

As for not being able to enforce their rulings, no one branch of government can stand alone. When the Executive enforces a Judicial ruling (or for that matter a Legislative Act), it takes nothing from the legitimacy of the Judiciary. Enforcement is the Executive's function, after all. Is the Legislative somehow less legitimate because their Acts must be signed by POTUS? Or is that just how the system is designed?

As for the Judiciary being beholden to the majority, I would again disagree. The Courts are not beholden to anything but the law. Yes, I've already said they sometimes screw up. But when they do their job they have an obligation to apply it to all equally regardless of majority status or opinion. Which is precisely what makes them the defenders of minority rights and the defense against mob rule. The moment the Judiciary is accountable to the same popularity contest as the political branches, that will end. I for one don't want to see that happen.

But now this really is getting far afield and I think I need more coffee.

 

[George Costanza]

Why do you keep insisting I am saying something I am not?

Since you insist on discussing a side issue here, I will defend my interpretation of the fact that the vote was nullified. If I voted for a law that only people with that own land get to vote on property taxes, and that law was then challenged by renters who did not like the fact that they now get no say on school spending, and the courts eventually struck down that law for whatever reason, then the end result is that my vote is nullified. It does not ultimately matter if the court decides the vote was wrong because someone who supported the law committed fraud, thus invalidating the vote itself, or he just decides the law is badly written, and thus unenforceable, it still negates my vote by negating the result of the vote.

Please note that this is not an argument that the judge lacks the power to do this, it just is an argument that this is what he is doing. This is not just a perception, it is a fact, even if it is one that makes no difference to the outcome of the case.

Let us now discuss your contention that the courts are the last resort against mob rule. I am willing to admit that this seems to be taught in many schools today, and that there is even some evidence to support this assertion, but that does not make it true.

The truth is that courts have no power to enforce their rulings, and are thus not a defense against anything. If Eisenhower had not ordered out the National Guard to enforce the desegregation ruling in Alabama the schools there might still be segregated.

Courts have even been used to facilitate mob rule, like they did in the Jim Crow era. How does this make them our last line of defense?

This is not about fear, this is about the rule of law. The power of the government comes from the people, it is not imposed on them. I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp, but it is ultimately why I refuse to accept the label of liberal as it is defined today. Everyone has the right, and the ability, to make their own decisions. Liberals toady believe that the government should make decisions for the people, and that most people are not capable of understanding the esoteric rationale behind those decisions.

If the court truly acted the way you are trying to claim it did in this particular instance I would have absolutely no problem with it, but that is not what happened. Judge Walker essentially ruled that over half of the people in California were completely irrational when they voted for Proposition 8. This decision was not based on the rule of law, or anything resembling logic. It was based solely on the perception of the judge that there is no rational basis for this law.

In other words, even though I fully support SSM, this decision offends me because it allows the perceptions of one person to outweigh the decisions of everyone who voted. Even though I think that the people who argue against SSM are wrong, I do recognize that they have some valid points about the way liberal polices have negatively impacted marriage over the years. The idea that the only reason anyone has to oppose SSM is because they are prejudiced against homosexuals is so ridiculous that it shows an inherent bigotry against religious beliefs.

If you want to argue that the courts are mostly fair I will not argue, but do not try to tell me they are our last defense against mob rule, because they are not even a defense against the mob. They often support the mob, and are supporting the fear mongering you claim to oppose with this decision.

If I'm misreading, I apologize. But the main theme in the OP and in other posts, including yours, seems to center around the perception that the vote in CA is being nullified. My entire point is that it is not. Perhaps the argument over the function of the courts is a side issue, or perhaps it strikes at the heart of the actual reason people are upset with what's going on in this case. In any case, the rest of the thread seems to have moved on into the same sex marriage argument itself....but I'll respond to your point here.

I'm going back to first principles rather than get bogged down in individual issues. You say you disagree with this ruling because it allows the decision of one person to override the votes of millions of individuals. But I'm trying to point out that is not the case. The trial judge, as representative of the Federal judiciary, found that a portion of the California state constitution was in violation of the COTUS. That's what happened, nothing more. Separate your issues.

The fact that the provision was made part of the CA constitution in the first place was where the vote was honored. Past that point, the law is the same as any other and the same standards apply. The Court hears the arguments, fiinds the facts, applies the law and a decision is reached. There are no judgment calls being made on the voters here. The problem is that the Prop 8 amendment as written and enacted was found to be in violation of the Constitution of the United States by a member of the Federal Judiciary. Period.

I see no problem with what the judge did, he did his job. My only problem is with the State's decision not to appeal, as I do think leaving the question open leaves a wedge to be exploited to the detriment of actual policy concerns. This issue needs to be settled. But I can disagree and still respect that it is their decision and nobody else's to make.

As for not being able to enforce their rulings, no one branch of government can stand alone. When the Executive enforces a Judicial ruling (or for that matter a Legislative Act), it takes nothing from the legitimacy of the Judiciary. Enforcement is the Executive's function, after all. Is the Legislative somehow less legitimate because their Acts must be signed by POTUS? Or is that just how the system is designed?

As for the Judiciary being beholden to the majority, I would again disagree. The Courts are not beholden to anything but the law. Yes, I've already said they sometimes screw up. But when they do their job they have an obligation to apply it to all equally regardless of majority status or opinion. Which is precisely what makes them the defenders of minority rights and the defense against mob rule. The moment the Judiciary is accountable to the same popularity contest as the political branches, that will end. I for one don't want to see that happen.

But now this really is getting far afield and I think I need more coffee.

Memo to QW: She's right.

 

[ConHog]

Why do you keep insisting I am saying something I am not?

Since you insist on discussing a side issue here, I will defend my interpretation of the fact that the vote was nullified. If I voted for a law that only people with that own land get to vote on property taxes, and that law was then challenged by renters who did not like the fact that they now get no say on school spending, and the courts eventually struck down that law for whatever reason, then the end result is that my vote is nullified. It does not ultimately matter if the court decides the vote was wrong because someone who supported the law committed fraud, thus invalidating the vote itself, or he just decides the law is badly written, and thus unenforceable, it still negates my vote by negating the result of the vote.

Please note that this is not an argument that the judge lacks the power to do this, it just is an argument that this is what he is doing. This is not just a perception, it is a fact, even if it is one that makes no difference to the outcome of the case.

Let us now discuss your contention that the courts are the last resort against mob rule. I am willing to admit that this seems to be taught in many schools today, and that there is even some evidence to support this assertion, but that does not make it true.

The truth is that courts have no power to enforce their rulings, and are thus not a defense against anything. If Eisenhower had not ordered out the National Guard to enforce the desegregation ruling in Alabama the schools there might still be segregated.

Courts have even been used to facilitate mob rule, like they did in the Jim Crow era. How does this make them our last line of defense?

This is not about fear, this is about the rule of law. The power of the government comes from the people, it is not imposed on them. I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp, but it is ultimately why I refuse to accept the label of liberal as it is defined today. Everyone has the right, and the ability, to make their own decisions. Liberals toady believe that the government should make decisions for the people, and that most people are not capable of understanding the esoteric rationale behind those decisions.

If the court truly acted the way you are trying to claim it did in this particular instance I would have absolutely no problem with it, but that is not what happened. Judge Walker essentially ruled that over half of the people in California were completely irrational when they voted for Proposition 8. This decision was not based on the rule of law, or anything resembling logic. It was based solely on the perception of the judge that there is no rational basis for this law.

In other words, even though I fully support SSM, this decision offends me because it allows the perceptions of one person to outweigh the decisions of everyone who voted. Even though I think that the people who argue against SSM are wrong, I do recognize that they have some valid points about the way liberal polices have negatively impacted marriage over the years. The idea that the only reason anyone has to oppose SSM is because they are prejudiced against homosexuals is so ridiculous that it shows an inherent bigotry against religious beliefs.

If you want to argue that the courts are mostly fair I will not argue, but do not try to tell me they are our last defense against mob rule, because they are not even a defense against the mob. They often support the mob, and are supporting the fear mongering you claim to oppose with this decision.

If I'm misreading, I apologize. But the main theme in the OP and in other posts, including yours, seems to center around the perception that the vote in CA is being nullified. My entire point is that it is not. Perhaps the argument over the function of the courts is a side issue, or perhaps it strikes at the heart of the actual reason people are upset with what's going on in this case. In any case, the rest of the thread seems to have moved on into the same sex marriage argument itself....but I'll respond to your point here.

I'm going back to first principles rather than get bogged down in individual issues. You say you disagree with this ruling because it allows the decision of one person to override the votes of millions of individuals. But I'm trying to point out that is not the case. The trial judge, as representative of the Federal judiciary, found that a portion of the California state constitution was in violation of the COTUS. That's what happened, nothing more. Separate your issues.

The fact that the provision was made part of the CA constitution in the first place was where the vote was honored. Past that point, the law is the same as any other and the same standards apply. The Court hears the arguments, fiinds the facts, applies the law and a decision is reached. There are no judgment calls being made on the voters here. The problem is that the Prop 8 amendment as written and enacted was found to be in violation of the Constitution of the United States by a member of the Federal Judiciary. Period.

I see no problem with what the judge did, he did his job. My only problem is with the State's decision not to appeal, as I do think leaving the question open leaves a wedge to be exploited to the detriment of actual policy concerns. This issue needs to be settled. But I can disagree and still respect that it is their decision and nobody else's to make.

As for not being able to enforce their rulings, no one branch of government can stand alone. When the Executive enforces a Judicial ruling (or for that matter a Legislative Act), it takes nothing from the legitimacy of the Judiciary. Enforcement is the Executive's function, after all. Is the Legislative somehow less legitimate because their Acts must be signed by POTUS? Or is that just how the system is designed?

As for the Judiciary being beholden to the majority, I would again disagree. The Courts are not beholden to anything but the law. Yes, I've already said they sometimes screw up. But when they do their job they have an obligation to apply it to all equally regardless of majority status or opinion. Which is precisely what makes them the defenders of minority rights and the defense against mob rule. The moment the Judiciary is accountable to the same popularity contest as the political branches, that will end. I for one don't want to see that happen.

But now this really is getting far afield and I think I need more coffee.

Memo to QW: She's right.

Now, if those same people could manage to get a COTUS amendment passed..........

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If I'm misreading, I apologize. But the main theme in the OP and in other posts, including yours, seems to center around the perception that the vote in CA is being nullified. My entire point is that it is not. Perhaps the argument over the function of the courts is a side issue, or perhaps it strikes at the heart of the actual reason people are upset with what's going on in this case. In any case, the rest of the thread seems to have moved on into the same sex marriage argument itself....but I'll respond to your point here.

To me it is a side issue, and I claim, nor do I accept, any responsibility for what anyone else posts, or thinks.

I'm going back to first principles rather than get bogged down in individual issues. You say you disagree with this ruling because it allows the decision of one person to override the votes of millions of individuals. But I'm trying to point out that is not the case. The trial judge, as representative of the Federal judiciary, found that a portion of the California state constitution was in violation of the COTUS. That's what happened, nothing more. Separate your issues.

No, I disagree with the ruling because it is based on one persons perceptions, and not upon the rule of law. There is no way this judge is going to convince me that everyone who voted for Proposition 8 in California is an irrational bigot who wants to discriminate against gays. That is a perception, not a fact, and it is wrong for a judge to dismiss the concerns 7 million people the way he did.

Additionally, I think the judge is stretching the law and ignoring precedent, and federal law, for no other reason than that he is aiming his arguments at convincing one person on the Supreme Court to not issue a stay preventing these marriages from taking place during the appeals process.

The fact that the provision was made part of the CA constitution in the first place was where the vote was honored. Past that point, the law is the same as any other and the same standards apply. The Court hears the arguments, fiinds the facts, applies the law and a decision is reached. There are no judgment calls being made on the voters here. The problem is that the Prop 8 amendment as written and enacted was found to be in violation of the Constitution of the United States by a member of the Federal Judiciary. Period.

I never said that the vote was not honored, I said that the vote is being nullified because the result of the vote is being overturned.If nullified is not the correct legal term here than I will welcome you educating me on the term I should use. What I will not welcome, or accept, is your assertion that the vote is not being nullified.

I see no problem with what the judge did, he did his job. My only problem is with the State's decision not to appeal, as I do think leaving the question open leaves a wedge to be exploited to the detriment of actual policy concerns. This issue needs to be settled. But I can disagree and still respect that it is their decision and nobody else's to make.

There is where we disagree. If he had actually done his job he would not have dismissed 7 million people out of hand like he did. Unfortunately, the legal system today believes that judges have the authority to ignore laws simply because they do not like them, and that they do not have to base their reasoning on the law, precedents, or the Constitution.

As for not being able to enforce their rulings, no one branch of government can stand alone. When the Executive enforces a Judicial ruling (or for that matter a Legislative Act), it takes nothing from the legitimacy of the Judiciary. Enforcement is the Executive's function, after all. Is the Legislative somehow less legitimate because their Acts must be signed by POTUS? Or is that just how the system is designed?

And when the executive ignores the judicial branch? What happens then?

You got it, nothing. Which is why no one has ever been able to force POTUS to do something he decided not to do.

Nonetheless, this does negate your claim that the courts are our last defense against mob rule, even if you do not want to admit it.

As for the Judiciary being beholden to the majority, I would again disagree. The Courts are not beholden to anything but the law. Yes, I've already said they sometimes screw up. But when they do their job they have an obligation to apply it to all equally regardless of majority status or opinion. Which is precisely what makes them the defenders of minority rights and the defense against mob rule. The moment the Judiciary is accountable to the same popularity contest as the political branches, that will end. I for one don't want to see that happen.

I did not say they were beholden to anyone, what I said is that they are sometimes part of the problem. The courts exist to interpret and rule on the law, not to make new laws. Their job is spelled out in the Constitution, and it is actually the job of the legislature to protect minority rights.

Again, this is not your fault, you believe you are right because that is what the activists decided was the easier way to get the changes they were after. They jacked the education system early, and taught people from child hood that the proper role of the courts is to be active in changing society and law. Just remember when it turns against you that you thought it was a good idea when it worked for you.

I just think it is a bad idea all around.

But now this really is getting far afield and I think I need more coffee.

Which was my point way back somewhere, this is not relevant to the discussion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Memo to QW: She's right.

Only if you accept the fact that the courts have more power than they are intended to have.

 

[syrenn]

QW

I think the judge did not ignore the voters. He ruled that what they voted on and passed was unconstitutional.

 

[HUGGY]

I snipped off this portion because I think this is EXACTLY what you and the OP (and others) were trying to address here. I'll get back to the rest later when I have time, but I'll tackle this now.

You, the OP and others are saying, in essence, you understand the legal difference but the law and its process make no difference to popular perception - so the perception should win out over law in a court of law.

With all due respect, that is a ridiculous position.

Are we a nation of laws, of due process and the procedures that safeguard us from abuse? Or are we a nation of blowdried halfwit pundits telling us what to think and emotional knee-jerk responses to catch phrases? That sounds harsh and I know it, but think about what you're saying here and how it applies. Then back off and look at it again from your rational side.

The Courts are our last bastion against exactly the sort of mob rule you are advocating here. They operate, believe it or not, under strict procedural and jurisdictional limitations for a reason. Standing is one of those limitations. You may not agree with their decisions, hell I disagree with them as often as anybody else. But disagreeing with their decisions and denying their right to make them or the very existence of the rules by which they make them are two very, very different things.

When you disagree with what Congress does, why aren't you out railing to the heavens about their illegitimacy to pass law? When you disagree with a decision by the POTUS, why aren't you out crying about his illegitimacy to perform his tasks? (Unless you're a birfer, but that's a different thread. )

The Courts are a mystery to most people. The judges are unelected. They have arcane, highly theoretical and complicated procedures and a maze of rules even a lot of attorneys who don't deal with the Federal system on a regular basis can have trouble with. They work from a base of law, equity, history and precedent so vast and complex it seems sometimes they pull what are actually very sound decisions out of thin air. They apply interpretations from a broad range of mainstream paradigms, and there will always be disagreement over which interpretation should be used. Sometimes they screw the pooch royally. And we're told over and over again to fear them, that they're taking away our rights and destroying our principles rather than performing the task of upholding them as best they can against the galloping herd. I get it.

There's nothing I can say to combat the power of the fear machine, I get that too. Who am I but some ghost in the machine? But I will say this: If you can see the legal point, remember the Courts ONLY deal with law. They do not and cannot care about how you feel or perceive, that is not their job and is not within their power and quite frankly it should never be. They exist solely to address that legal point and resolve controversy in a civilized manner according to their rules and limitations. Period.

I said it on another thread to another poster earlier and I'll say it here, learn to separate out the issues.

Why do you keep insisting I am saying something I am not?
Since you insist on discussing a side issue here, I will defend my interpretation of the fact that the vote was nullified. If I voted for a law that only people with that own land get to vote on property taxes, and that law was then challenged by renters who did not like the fact that they now get no say on school spending, and the courts eventually struck down that law for whatever reason, then the end result is that my vote is nullified. It does not ultimately matter if the court decides the vote was wrong because someone who supported the law committed fraud, thus invalidating the vote itself, or he just decides the law is badly written, and thus unenforceable, it still negates my vote by negating the result of the vote.

Please note that this is not an argument that the judge lacks the power to do this, it just is an argument that this is what he is doing. This is not just a perception, it is a fact, even if it is one that makes no difference to the outcome of the case.

Let us now discuss your contention that the courts are the last resort against mob rule. I am willing to admit that this seems to be taught in many schools today, and that there is even some evidence to support this assertion, but that does not make it true.

The truth is that courts have no power to enforce their rulings, and are thus not a defense against anything. If Eisenhower had not ordered out the National Guard to enforce the desegregation ruling in Alabama the schools there might still be segregated.

Courts have even been used to facilitate mob rule, like they did in the Jim Crow era. How does this make them our last line of defense?

This is not about fear, this is about the rule of law. The power of the government comes from the people, it is not imposed on them. I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp, but it is ultimately why I refuse to accept the label of liberal as it is defined today. Everyone has the right, and the ability, to make their own decisions. Liberals toady believe that the government should make decisions for the people, and that most people are not capable of understanding the esoteric rationale behind those decisions.

If the court truly acted the way you are trying to claim it did in this particular instance I would have absolutely no problem with it, but that is not what happened. Judge Walker essentially ruled that over half of the people in California were completely irrational when they voted for Proposition 8. This decision was not based on the rule of law, or anything resembling logic. It was based solely on the perception of the judge that there is no rational basis for this law.

In other words, even though I fully support SSM, this decision offends me because it allows the perceptions of one person to outweigh the decisions of everyone who voted. Even though I think that the people who argue against SSM are wrong, I do recognize that they have some valid points about the way liberal polices have negatively impacted marriage over the years. The idea that the only reason anyone has to oppose SSM is because they are prejudiced against homosexuals is so ridiculous that it shows an inherent bigotry against religious beliefs.

If you want to argue that the courts are mostly fair I will not argue, but do not try to tell me they are our last defense against mob rule, because they are not even a defense against the mob. They often support the mob, and are supporting the fear mongering you claim to oppose with this decision.

Prove you are not saying something you are not!

Links??????

 

[goldcatt]

QW

I think the judge did not ignore the voters. He ruled that what they voted on and passed was unconstitutional.

Exactly.

The vote and this case are two separate issues.

 

[Pappadave]

California, the granola state. Nothing but flakes, fruits, and nuts. Pappadave.