Liberal FASCISM in California

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by ScreamingEagle, May 15, 2008.

  1. ScreamingEagle
    Offline

    ScreamingEagle Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    12,887
    Thanks Received:
    1,610
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,159
    This is how it happens folks! What they just did in California is FASCISM IN ACTION.

    It doesn't matter whether you are anti-gay or pro-gay...you should be worried. When you have a few Judges making decisions in blatant opposition to the Will of the People without Constitutional authority - you got legislation from the bench and FASCISTIC Judges overriding the Will of the People. This is Liberal FASCISM in action.

    Four out of seven judges in the California Supreme Court broke their covenant with the People of California. Four judges probably owned by the gay mafia. Four Judges who thought they were well-meaning and decided they "knew better" than the majority of the People of California.

    In 2000 the People of California voted for Legislation that defined marriage as being between only one man and one woman. It was passed with a flying majority of 65%.

    But 4 measly Judges just flipped the FASCIST bird into the face of the People of California.

    The question now remains....if a few Judges can so freely override the Will of the People....what will these Liberal FASCISTS do next???
     
  2. Larkinn
    Offline

    Larkinn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,598
    Thanks Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +175
    Did you feel the same way when the judge-made law of Brown v. Board of Ed came down?

    Owned by the gay mafia? What are you smoking?
     
  3. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Sometimes the majority is just about numbers and not the rectitude of something.

    Doesn't the term "the tyranny of the majority" mean anything?

    I have read elsewhere that some folks think that the US is a republic rather than a democracy (it's both) and that the republican form of government (and there's a good argument for republicanism as a theory of governmet, I accept that) protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority which allegedly occurs in countries with parliamentary forms of government.

    Now what exactly did these judges do? Did they interpret the law? If so then they did their job. Should judges have that ability taken away from them? Should there only be the executive and legislature now? That way lies tyranny.

    You mightn't agree with the decision but that doesn't mean the judges did anything wrong, they just interpreted the law in a manner you don't like. It's not the end of the world.

    I would think the folks who don't want gays to marry can start it all over again and this time make sure they comply with the law.

    Jeez it's not a fricking natural (or unnatural) disaster, it's just a legal ruling.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Dogger
    Offline

    Dogger Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Messages:
    979
    Thanks Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Dixie
    Ratings:
    +58
    What we have seen in California is the opposite of fascism. Fascism exists when authoritarian executives constrain or co-opt the courts from exercising their central role of protecting individual liberty from government control. The people who now demand judicial restraint and strict constructionist judges are the ones who are facilitating the conditions fascists need to thrive.

    Let's imagine a world where the Roe v. Wade does not exist. What prevents a state from telling you where you may live, what hours you may sleep, how many children you may have, or who you may marry in the future?
     
  5. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,551
    Thanks Received:
    5,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,971
    Well actually the courts do tell people where they can NOT live. In the case of people convicted of sex offenses and released because they SERVED their punishment as proscribed by law. The law especially in California is horrible in this regard. They tell men they have no right what so ever in regards their unborn children. In Texas they tell us what religion we can belong to or they will seize our children.

    Judges do not have the authority to legislate from the Bench. They are supposed to interpret the law not make new law from the Bench. The People have that power in California through the ballot. And they spoke in a convincing manner.
     
  6. rayboyusmc
    Offline

    rayboyusmc Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    4,015
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +338
     
  7. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,552
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,428
    Yeah, it's what whining eagle cries about when he's told he can't make this country into a theocracy. lol...
     
  8. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    15,492
    Thanks Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,353
    Should polygamy be allowed next? I mean, they have rights too. Why should we deny them their sexual rights. And then sex with animals, why should we deny their sexual inhibitions?
     
  9. doeton
    Offline

    doeton Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    1,213
    Thanks Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +65
    personally i have zero issue with polygamy among consenting adults.

    but then there's the cult thing, not too mention the young girl thing,
    and what about tax status?

    as a side note can animals consent?
     
  10. Shogun
    Offline

    Shogun Free: Mudholes Stomped

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    30,495
    Thanks Received:
    2,224
    Trophy Points:
    1,043
    Ratings:
    +2,260
    this won't be the victory that gay rights should have had. this has bankrupted the entire constitutional system by invalidating the will of the people. I'll remind you dumbasses, Blacks didn't gain equality outside of LEGISLATION. the PEOPLE voted for womens suffrage. It didn't take a court to authorize (validate legislation, yes; AUTHORIZE, no) either and I'd bet you'll find that supporting maleable judges NOW, while they act according to what you agree with, won't make you keep from crying foul later when they act against what you agree with. Then again, if you think RvW is settled make sure you strap on yuor seatbelt when the pro-life crowd pulls the same trick we saw happen in Cal-if-orn-i-a yesterday.

    and Im neither bible junky OR republican so at least be a little creative with the necessary labels.
     

Share This Page