Judges overturn the will of the people again

[Bullypulpit]

Bully, you've lost it! :scratch:

Not at all, dear lady... Not at all.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not at all, dear lady... Not at all.

Are you sure?

Californian voters supported Prop 22, a Defense of Marriage Act, March 7, 2000. It was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote. http://wackyiraqi.com/rant/gay_marriage/marriagewatch.htm

Then along comes ONE judge in the pocket of the Gay Fascists/Commie-lites.

How can this one judge state Proposition 22 "unconstitutional" when all referendums have to pass a test that determines they are legally viable in the first place before they are put to vote before the people?

If trashing the peoples' vote isn't a form of tyranny, then what is?

 

[Bonnie]

Are you sure?

Californian voters supported Prop 22, a Defense of Marriage Act, March 7, 2000. It was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote. http://wackyiraqi.com/rant/gay_marriage/marriagewatch.htm

Then along comes ONE judge in the pocket of the Gay Fascists/Commie-lites.

How can this one judge state Proposition 22 "unconstitutional" when all referendums have to pass a test that determines they are legally viable in the first place before they are put to vote before the people?

If trashing the peoples' vote isn't a form of tyranny, then what is?

Now you know the will of the people has no merit anymore with activists judges. Funny how the founding fathers put safe gaps into the constitution to prevent tyranny like this and some judges think the Constitution is bendable like Silly Putty...........

 

[Bullypulpit]

Are you sure?

Californian voters supported Prop 22, a Defense of Marriage Act, March 7, 2000. It was ratified by an overwhelming majority of California voters, prevailing by a 23-point margin. Statewide, 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition, comprising 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote. http://wackyiraqi.com/rant/gay_marriage/marriagewatch.htm

Then along comes ONE judge in the pocket of the Gay Fascists/Commie-lites.

How can this one judge state Proposition 22 "unconstitutional" when all referendums have to pass a test that determines they are legally viable in the first place before they are put to vote before the people?

If trashing the peoples' vote isn't a form of tyranny, then what is?

It is about protecting a minority from the tyranny of the majority.

And just so you know, the judge is a Republican and a Catholic...Not a judicial activist.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/03/15/MNG8VBPIKS1.DTL

 

[musicman]

Bully:

Do you mean to imply, then, that the terms, "Republican" and, "judicial activist" are mutually exclusive?!

You've commited ideological heresy, old son. That's three bricks out of your little house in utopia.

 

[Bonnie]

Bully:

Do you mean to imply, then, that the terms, "Republican" and, "judicial activist" are mutually exclusive?!

You've commited ideological heresy, old son. That's three bricks out of your little house in utopia.

See I think Bully is a closet Conservative who just likes to rile up us youngsters

 

[KarlMarx]

Yawn...Still sounds like Dubbyuh and his merry band.

Yawn Bully, frankly I couldn't care less....

If you want to think that, go right ahead, if you want to believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and Mickey Mouse in the Moon, be my guest.

But don't be surprised if people think you're a moron, which frankly, I believe you fit the textbook definition of.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

answer this question for me please.

where in the constitution does it say marriage is limited to members of the opposite sex?

 

[KarlMarx]

I dont care what your opinion on the matter is. I dont care that you ignore all the rational basis we've discused many times. In fact, I dont have a problem with you advocating your points at all.

My problem is that this judge is violating the constitution by usurping the legislative branch of its powers. You may find an oligarchy preferable to a republic but i sure as heck dont. See I have this crazy concept that people should be free to create their own laws and decide whats right and wrong and not have judges oppress them.

Wow... a lawyer that actually believes in the rule of law.... now that's a breath of fresh air!

 

[KarlMarx]

answer this question for me please.

where in the constitution does it say marriage is limited to members of the opposite sex?

Where in the constitution does it say that women can get an abortion?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Where in the constitution does it say that women can get an abortion?

I asked my question first, but to answer yours it doesn't. thats my point though. The constitution isn't about limiting what a citizen can do, it limits the authority that the government has over the people, is that correct? The rest of the limits come in the form of laws written by the legislature, like murder and rape. correct?

 

[5stringJeff]

I asked my question first, but to answer yours it doesn't. thats my point though. The constitution isn't about limiting what a citizen can do, it limits the authority that the government has over the people, is that correct? The rest of the limits come in the form of laws written by the legislature, like murder and rape. correct?

And if the majority of people in a state vote for a law limiting the definition of marriage to a man-woman relationship, that woud then be in the bounds of the constitution.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

And if the majority of people in a state vote for a law limiting the definition of marriage to a man-woman relationship, that woud then be in the bounds of the constitution.

ok, i mostly agree with that. Now, how does anyone define WHAT is unconstitutional?

 

[Avatar4321]

answer this question for me please.

where in the constitution does it say marriage is limited to members of the opposite sex?

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The State of California decided this issue about five years ago through a direct referrendum. I know because i was there when people were getting ready to vote for it. Since the Constitution says that any issue it doesnt address is left up to the States and the State of California has limited marriage to members of the opposite sex the Constitution thereby says that marriage is limitted to members of the opposite sex.

But then agian its a logical impossibility for same gender marriage. its like drawing a circular square or having a feathered mammal as a pet. it just doesnt work.

 

[OCA]

I spent most of my life in California, just got off the phone with some friends who said no way will this stand. Polls run at about 65-35 for putting a ban on queer marriage into the state constitution, petitions are circulating as of this writing. It will happen this November.

 

[Avatar4321]

I spent most of my life in California, just got off the phone with some friends who said no way will this stand. Polls run at about 65-35 for putting a ban on queer marriage into the state constitution, petitions are circulating as of this writing. It will happen this November.

I only see one problem with that. If the judge ruled that its unconstitutional in reference to the California Constitution that will work. If the Judge ruled that its unconstitutional in regards to the US constitution amending the California Constitution isnt going to solve the problem. It should be done but it still wont be a complete fix.

I say we need to start a ground roots effort to hold a constitutional convention. if a majority of the states want to hold one we can. And we dont have to consult the US Congress for that. That option to ammend the Constitution has never happened before. i say we do it and elect people like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and other guys to it that we know will fight for good conservative amendments. We can get some Clergy, Some lawyers, some doctors. men who will stand up for whats right. I think that may be the only option eventually.

 

[Bonnie]

I only see one problem with that. If the judge ruled that its unconstitutional in reference to the California Constitution that will work. If the Judge ruled that its unconstitutional in regards to the US constitution amending the California Constitution isnt going to solve the problem. It should be done but it still wont be a complete fix.

I say we need to start a ground roots effort to hold a constitutional convention. if a majority of the states want to hold one we can. And we dont have to consult the US Congress for that. That option to ammend the Constitution has never happened before. i say we do it and elect people like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh and other guys to it that we know will fight for good conservative amendments. We can get some Clergy, Some lawyers, some doctors. men who will stand up for whats right. I think that may be the only option eventually.

I was under the impresson at least as of now that each state's court ruled on this matter until an actual amendment was made to the Constitution?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

ok, i mostly agree with that. Now, how does anyone define WHAT is unconstitutional?

Without getting too pin-headed, anything that opposes what is spelled out in the Constitution. Anything not specifically spelled out should be left for the People to vote on, not for the judges to decide on, making new law. They should throw the decision back to the People/Legislative Branch. Let the democratic light shine on the gray areas.

 

[Bonnie]

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Supreme Court's recent decision to strike down the juvenile death penalty, calling it the latest example of politics on the court that has made judicial nominations an increasingly bitter process.

In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on "evolving notions of decency" was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said.


"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again," Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility."

"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.

Scalia, who has been mentioned as a possible chief justice nominee should Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites) retire, outlined his judicial philosophy of interpreting the Constitution according to its text, as understood at the time it was adopted.


Citing the example of abortion, he said unelected justices too often choose to read new rights into the Constitution, at the expense of the democratic process.

"Abortion is off the democratic stage. Prohibiting it is unconstitutional, now and forever, coast to coast, until I guess we amend the Constitution," said Scalia, who was appointed to the court by President Reagan in 1986.


He blamed Chief Justice Earl Warren, who presided from 1953-69 over a court that assaulted racial segregation and expanded individual rights against arbitrary government searches, for the increased political role of the Supreme Court, citing Warren's political background. Warren was governor of California and the Republican vice presidential nominee in 1948.


"You have a chief justice who was a governor, a policy-maker, who approached the law with that frame of mind. Once you have a leader with that mentality, it's hard not to follow," Scalia said, in response to a question from the audience.
Scalia said increased politics on the court will create a bitter nomination fight for the next Supreme Court appointee, since judges are now more concerned with promoting their personal policy preferences rather than interpreting the law.


"If we're picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a 'new' Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us," he said, explaining that's why senators increasingly probe nominees for their personal views on positions such as abortion.

"When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless," Scalia said.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050315/ap_on_go_su_co/scalia_1

 

[Bonnie]

ADF attorneys will defend California’s marriage laws in federal court
Judge says Proposition 22 Fund’s involvement is integral to Orange County case
Wednesday, November 03, 2004, 10:15 AM (MST)



SANTA ANA, Calif.—A federal district court judge today granted Alliance Defense Fund attorneys the right to intervene on behalf of the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund in defense of California’s marriage laws.

The decision marks the first time that a party has been granted intervention "as of right" in a same-sex "marriage" case, meaning that the court determined that the Proposition 22 Fund has substantial interests in the outcome of the suit and therefore a right to defend the marriage laws at issue.

"We intend to mount a serious defense of the marriage laws in California under attack in federal court," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Byron Babione. "We look forward to representing the Proposition 22 Fund in its effort to ensure that the will of Californians who passed Proposition 22 is respected."

California’s Defense of Marriage Act, the result of the Proposition 22 ballot initiative, states, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Sixty-one percent of California voters passed the measure in March 2000.

"This is an important case in that the attack is not only upon Proposition 22 but upon many of California’s laws recognizing marriage between one man and one woman," Babione explained. "To redefine the institution of marriage, which has existed throughout history in all cultures and religions, to include same-sex couples is novel, unnecessary, and undesirable to the vast majority of Americans, as was proven by Tuesday’s state marriage amendment votes."

Tuesday, voters in eleven states approved amendments to their state constitutions recognizing marriage between a man and a woman only. None of the proposed marriage amendments on the ballot across the nation were defeated.

The case in which the Proposition 22 Fund is intervening, Smelt, et al., v. County of Orange, California, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. Two homosexual men who twice sought to obtain a marriage license in Orange County, but were denied because they are both of the same sex, filed the suit September 1.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/default.aspx?mid=800&cid=2898