Liberal FASCISM in California

[ScreamingEagle]

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???

 

[Larkinn]

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?

 

[Diuretic]

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.

 

[Dogger]

Fascism is a government, faction, movement, or political philosophy that raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual and is characterized by a centralized autocratic state governed by a dictatorial head, stringent organization of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition. In addition to placing the interests of the individual as subordinate to that of the nation or race, fascism seeks to achieve a national rebirth by promoting cults of unity, energy and purity.

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?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

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.

 

[rayboyusmc]

[Four Judges who thought they were well-meaning and decided they "knew better" than the majority of the People of California.
/QUOTE]

Like the Supreme Court and the 2000 Selection?

 

[jillian]

Sometimes the majority is just about numbers and not the rectitude of something.

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

Yeah, it's what whining eagle cries about when he's told he can't make this country into a theocracy. lol...

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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?

 

[doeton]

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?

 

[Shogun]

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.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

Bollocks it invalidated the will of the people. It's a legal interpretation. Courts do that.

 

[Shogun]

Bollocks it invalidated the will of the people. It's a legal interpretation. Courts do that.

interpretation of the LEGISLATION THAT SPECIFICALLY SAID NO TO GAY MARRIAGE? Can I use that same brilliance to INTERPRET the constitution too? Im sure there are plenty who would love to re-invent that pesky first amendment.


So, interpret this for me:


The sky is blue and the sun is yellow.



Do you want to see the results of the law that was invalidated? Like I said, it's not the victory you think it is.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[Four Judges who thought they were well-meaning and decided they "knew better" than the majority of the People of California.
/QUOTE]

Like the Supreme Court and the 2000 Selection?

7 of 9 agreed the Florida Court was wrong. So the only 4 that you must be talking about are the 4 liberal Democrats on the Florida Bench.

 

[jillian]

You keep saying that... that's a lie. It was only on one issue. On the major issue, the one that mattered, it was 5 to 4.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Bollocks it invalidated the will of the people. It's a legal interpretation. Courts do that.

They "invalidated" a specific measure that Stated no gay marriage. Voted on and APPROVED by 65 percent of the voters in California. At least get your facts straight. They legislated from the Bench, no "intrepretation" at all.

 

[mattskramer]

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???

Ha ha ha. What a red herring. Here is some will of the people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110900365.html

Voters approved ballot measures to ban handguns in San Francisco and urge the city's public high schools and college campuses to keep out military recruiters.

So which is it? Do courts interpret the constitution and decide or do people vote and decide – or (which I think is really the case) you want to be the ultimate judge. The courts were wrong on gay marriage. They did not base their decision on the will of the people. The people were wrong on the gun-ban. They did not obey the constitution.

 

[midcan5]

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?

Polygamy is interesting as it is consenting adults, or should be adults, but animals are not consenting adults.


ScreamingEagle wouldn't know a fascist if they fell on top of him.


Bravo California.

 

[Shogun]

just remember... turnabout is fairplay... If it just so happens that mccain wins and packs the supreme court I'm going to be laughing like a crazy at you people who will be crying about judicial activism THEN...

 

[AllieBaba]

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?

Yeah, that terrible world of the 1950s, when recession was a bad dream, everyone lived better than their parents did and welfare was the exception and not the rule....

 

[mattskramer]

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?

That is an old typical fallacious argument. It falls under the domino and slippery slope theory. I’m sorry to inform you that people are not dominos. Let me see if I can show you your argument this way:

Do you think that people should be allowed to drink alcohol even though it is habit forming and may lead to an unhealthy lifestyle? You would not outlaw alcohol consumption for everyone, would you? At what age should people be allowed to drink? Why not at a year older, two years older, five? Why did you pick that particular age? It all comes down to where we draw the line.

Let’s consider tobacco smoking. At what age should people be allowed to smoke? If we allow smoking tobacco, what would be next – marijuana? If we allow people to take marijuana, we shouldn’t deny people the right to take cocaine.