Prop. 8 Ruling: "Fantastic" Decision or "Judicial Activism"?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by ekiosity, Aug 5, 2010.

  1. ekiosity
    Offline

    ekiosity Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    17
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    cbsnews com/8301-503544_162-20012759-503544.html

    Political commentators had a wide array of reactions to District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling yesterday that California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, is unconstitutional. Liberals praised both the decision and the details of Walker's written opinion, while conservatives decried it as judicial activism.


    "Today is one of those rare seminal days where something important and something good has occurred. Fantastic," blogger "bmaz" wrote on the liberal site FireDogLake. "The beauty and joy of equality, due process and equal protection under the Constitution of the United States of America."
     
  2. ekiosity
    Offline

    ekiosity Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    17
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2
    So, what exactly does equal protection mean here? The protection to marry who you want? Because the government doesn't give anyone that right.
     
  3. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    Here is a little info on the judge.



    omination by President George H. W. Bush to a seat on the federal district court vacated by Spencer M. Williams.[1] Walker was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on November 21, 1989, on unanimous consent and received commission on November 27, 1989.

    Walker's original nomination to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987 stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[4] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor.


    Wired magazine describes Walker as having libertarian leanings.[7]
     
  4. Lonestar_logic
    Offline

    Lonestar_logic Republic of Texas

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    24,318
    Thanks Received:
    2,193
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,505
    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.
     
  5. Luissa
    Offline

    Luissa Annoying Customer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    43,190
    Thanks Received:
    5,593
    Trophy Points:
    1,785
    Location:
    TARDIS
    Ratings:
    +5,664
    equal protection is part of the 14th amendment.
     
  6. bodecea
    Offline

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    89,001
    Thanks Received:
    10,368
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +23,635
    I'm guessing Lonestar's not too fond of the 14th amendment.
     
  7. G.T.
    Offline

    G.T. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    47,473
    Thanks Received:
    7,569
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    out
    Ratings:
    +27,428
    I think it's late that this is even happening in our Country. 2010. Really?
     
  8. topspin
    Offline

    topspin BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,149
    Thanks Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +196
    great
    any discrimination is bad
    next cali will legalize God's herb and we can save billions on prohibition of fun
     
  9. G.T.
    Offline

    G.T. Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    47,473
    Thanks Received:
    7,569
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    out
    Ratings:
    +27,428
    I can't believe that's still illegal either, to be honest.
     
  10. Lonestar_logic
    Offline

    Lonestar_logic Republic of Texas

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    24,318
    Thanks Received:
    2,193
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,505
    Doesn't matter, marriage is a state's rights issue. The 10th Amendment is clear. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967 due to anti-miscegenation laws). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law.

    DOMA has been under challenge in the federal courts, and on July 8, 2010, Judge Joseph Tauro of the District Court of Massachusetts held that the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts same-sex couples under the DOMA is unconstitutional, under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
     

Share This Page