Why California’s Proposition 8 Would Make Jesus Weep (1 Viewer)

[Cassius]

Brian Brown who is the executive director of the National Organization for Marriage.

Just heard an interview this guy did on NPR Talk of the Nation - I don't think he did his cause any favors. He couldn't specify what was wrong about the decision, and instead chose to insult the judge and calling the whole thing a "circus." An e-mailer asked him to articulate one way that allowing gay marriage impacts his (the e-mailer's) heterosexual marriage. The best a Brown could come up with is some church-sponsored group in Massachusetts who lost a portion of their tax benefits because they refused to let a gay couple get married in a pavilion the church owned. Also another church sponsored group was denied federal aid because they would not let a gay couple adopt. I was very confused as these impacts were entirely unrelated to the institution of marriage and, more importantly, were very positive benefits.As pathetic as the attempt was, it's probably miles ahead of what the FFA's best has managed to come up with.

 

[Cassius]

Now that's I've gone back and read this mess, I really shouldn't have wasted my time.

Either you entirely misunderstood the purpose of that post or for some reason you spent time debating a legal case without wanting to discuss the law.

No, I understood the purpose and was happy to discuss the law, but that was pathetic.

Throwing ideas off the top of my head to display the extremely low bar of rational basis review is pathetic? Someone is a tad sensitive.

The decision wasn't based on the failure of the rational basis test. The decision says that since there is a fundamental right to marriage (see Loving v. Virginia if you want to continue playing internet-Darrow with anything sounding like real credibility), ban of that right would have to pass strict scrutiny, which it doesn't even come close to doing. The judge went on to say that even if marriage wasn't a "fundamental" right, and this ban would only have to pass a "rational basis" examination, it would still fail because the Prop 8 supporters didn't put forth a single, passable rational argument (neither have you).The Prop 8 supporters are standing at the bottom of very high constitutional mountain, and judging from their first attempt, they have absolutely no idea how to climb it.

 

[otello]

Now that's I've gone back and read this mess, I really shouldn't have wasted my time.

Either you entirely misunderstood the purpose of that post or for some reason you spent time debating a legal case without wanting to discuss the law.

No, I understood the purpose and was happy to discuss the law, but that was pathetic.

Throwing ideas off the top of my head to display the extremely low bar of rational basis review is pathetic? Someone is a tad sensitive.

The decision wasn't based on the failure of the rational basis test. The decision says that since there is a fundamental right to marriage (see Loving v. Virginia if you want to continue playing internet-Darrow with anything sounding like real credibility), ban of that right would have to pass strict scrutiny, which it doesn't even come close to doing. The judge went on to say that even if marriage wasn't a "fundamental" right, and this ban would only have to pass a "rational basis" examination, it would still fail because the Prop 8 supporters didn't put forth a single, passable rational argument (neither have you).The Prop 8 supporters are standing at the bottom of very high constitutional mountain, and judging from their first attempt, they have absolutely no idea how to climb it.

The EP section was rational basis. See my earlier posts.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Now that's I've gone back and read this mess, I really shouldn't have wasted my time.

Either you entirely misunderstood the purpose of that post or for some reason you spent time debating a legal case without wanting to discuss the law.

No, I understood the purpose and was happy to discuss the law, but that was pathetic.

Throwing ideas off the top of my head to display the extremely low bar of rational basis review is pathetic? Someone is a tad sensitive.

The decision wasn't based on the failure of the rational basis test. The decision says that since there is a fundamental right to marriage (see Loving v. Virginia if you want to continue playing internet-Darrow with anything sounding like real credibility), ban of that right would have to pass strict scrutiny, which it doesn't even come close to doing. The judge went on to say that even if marriage wasn't a "fundamental" right, and this ban would only have to pass a "rational basis" examination, it would still fail because the Prop 8 supporters didn't put forth a single, passable rational argument (neither have you).The Prop 8 supporters are standing at the bottom of very high constitutional mountain, and judging from their first attempt, they have absolutely no idea how to climb it.

You probably should read the decision closely before discussing it arrogantly if you want to continue playing internet-Darrow with anything sounding like real credibility.You pretty much got it backwards. He says he thinks there's a fundamental right to marriage, but that he needn't reach that question because Prop 8 fails even the rational basis test.

 

[dparker713]

What you fail to realize is that the arguments supporting Prop 8 need not be persuasive, merely suffficent. It's all good. You've no idea about the law. It's not your fault.

This was the exact defense that the attorneys supporting Prop 8 presented to the judge. And if the various reports can be believed, they made this argument with the exact same sort of arrogance which you are doing here. It was a big fail with the judge, and I suspect it will fail in the 9th Circuit and before the Supreme Court as well.

You might want ot re-read those posts. Im not the one that broke out the arrogance. And the judge was just as arrogant as the Prop 8 lawyers. If he wanted to make the decision harder to overturn, he should have ruled on SDP grounds. He didn't and thus the decision is vulnerable to attack.

 

[dparker713]

The Prop 8 supporters are standing at the bottom of very high constitutional mountain, and judging from their first attempt, they have absolutely no idea how to climb it.

They screwed up, but as has been pointed out to you already the 'constitutional mountain' they need to climb is hardly insurmountable. Plus, they've already got controlling precedent on their side. Admittedly, its an old precedent that may or may not hold up on appeal, but its there.

 

[Konotay]

The Prop 8 supporters are standing at the bottom of very high constitutional mountain, and judging from their first attempt, they have absolutely no idea how to climb it.

They screwed up, but as has been pointed out to you already the 'constitutional mountain' they need to climb is hardly insurmountable. Plus, they've already got controlling precedent on their side. Admittedly, its an old precedent that may or may not hold up on appeal, but its there.

The real point is that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks now. Rather than change hearts and minds and win through the legislative process they have decided to allow the judicial branch to make the decision. But it gets worse. We pretty much know that 4 member of the SCOTUS will vote in favor and 4 will vote against gay marriage. There is really only one swing vote which is Justice Kennedy.So if votes for your position you will cheering his wisdom and understanding of the constitution. If not your stuck with the decision. Nobody's opinion matters anymore. His vote counts more than the 7 million voters who voted for prop 8. It matters more than all the states legislative and Governor's. In matters more that the 435 member's of Congress, 100 US Senators and the POTUS. The decision will decided by a one vote and only his vote matters. Welcome to judicial tyranny. IMO all the other 8 judges will have strong cases for why the constitution favors their positions. Which leaves us on the outside looking thinking in thinking the judicial process is extremely subjective. That it matters more about who occupies the seats rather than the constitution. Hypothetical question: If all the SCOTUS were to die by some tragedy when Republican were in charge of the Senate and Presidency. They put in 9 young strict constructionist on the court for the next 40 years. What would you think of the judicial process then? In other words, do you like the process because you have won using this process or do you really like the process? My guess if you consistently loose you would hate the process.

 

[Konotay]

What you fail to realize is that the arguments supporting Prop 8 need not be persuasive, merely suffficent.

Right, and what you threw down was clearly insufficient.

Or the judge had made up his mind before the trial and was looking for justification to back up his case.

 

[Statorama]

The decision will decided by a one vote and only his vote matters. Welcome to judicial tyranny.

Justice Kennedy has become one of the most powerful people in America.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

What you fail to realize is that the arguments supporting Prop 8 need not be persuasive, merely suffficent.

Right, and what you threw down was clearly insufficient.

Or the judge had made up his mind before the trial and was looking for justification to back up his case.

What part of the opinion do you point to as evidence of this?

 

[oneohh]

What you fail to realize is that the arguments supporting Prop 8 need not be persuasive, merely suffficent.

Right, and what you threw down was clearly insufficient.

Or the judge had made up his mind before the trial and was looking for justification to back up his case.

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

What you fail to realize is that the arguments supporting Prop 8 need not be persuasive, merely suffficent.

Right, and what you threw down was clearly insufficient.

Or the judge had made up his mind before the trial and was looking for justification to back up his case.

The gay judge? Preposterous.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The Prop 8 supporters are standing at the bottom of very high constitutional mountain, and judging from their first attempt, they have absolutely no idea how to climb it.

They screwed up, but as has been pointed out to you already the 'constitutional mountain' they need to climb is hardly insurmountable. Plus, they've already got controlling precedent on their side. Admittedly, its an old precedent that may or may not hold up on appeal, but its there.

The real point is that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks now. Rather than change hearts and minds and win through the legislative process they have decided to allow the judicial branch to make the decision. But it gets worse. We pretty much know that 4 member of the SCOTUS will vote in favor and 4 will vote against gay marriage. There is really only one swing vote which is Justice Kennedy.

So if votes for your position you will cheering his wisdom and understanding of the constitution. If not your stuck with the decision. Nobody's opinion matters anymore. His vote counts more than the 7 million voters who voted for prop 8. It matters more than all the states legislative and Governor's. In matters more that the 435 member's of Congress, 100 US Senators and the POTUS.

The decision will decided by a one vote and only his vote matters. Welcome to judicial tyranny. IMO all the other 8 judges will have strong cases for why the constitution favors their positions. Which leaves us on the outside looking thinking in thinking the judicial process is extremely subjective. That it matters more about who occupies the seats rather than the constitution.

Hypothetical question: If all the SCOTUS were to die by some tragedy when Republican were in charge of the Senate and Presidency. They put in 9 young strict constructionist on the court for the next 40 years. What would you think of the judicial process then? In other words, do you like the process because you have won using this process or do you really like the process? My guess if you consistently loose you would hate the process.

I know, right? What's with these judges enforcing their interpretation of the law over the will of the majority? Who do they think they are, persons appointed to one of the three branches of the federal government as set forth in the United States Constitution and tasked with the interpretation and application of the law? Please.I mean, it's not like the Bill of Rights was set up in large part to protect certain rights against the tyranny of the majority or something. The Founding Fathers can kiss my rear end. Let's just put everything to a vote! Majority rules! Sanctioned racial discrimination/segregation in the south! Warrantless searches of A-rabs! Mandatory prayer at all public gatherings! God bless America!

 

[the moops]

The gay judge? Preposterous.

Somehow I doubt you would be bringing up a straight judges sexual orientation if he or she ruled in your favor.

 

[badmojo1006]

What you fail to realize is that the arguments supporting Prop 8 need not be persuasive, merely suffficent.

Right, and what you threw down was clearly insufficient.

Or the judge had made up his mind before the trial and was looking for justification to back up his case.

So you say the Judge is openly gay and wanted to make a statement? Why didn't the defense challenge him to recuse himself based on his inherent bias? If that was such a big deal and it was openly known then, why didn't the defense challenge him? Either the defense attorneys were really incompetent or the realized he was a fair and impartial Justice? You do remember this Judge was first attempted to be appointed to the bench by Ronald Regan? But was opposed by Nancy Pelosi because of his supposed anti-gay bias?

 

[jon_mx]

The decision will decided by a one vote and only his vote matters. Welcome to judicial tyranny.

Justice Kennedy has become one of the most powerful people in America.

Become? He has been the most influential person (outside of maybe Bernanke) ever since Sandra retired. Unfortunately, Kennedy leans liberal on social issues, so it will go against the voters of California. Bank on that. But also bank on a backlash and an effort for a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage and maybe an Amendment to define life. This is gonna open up a hornets nest IMHO.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The gay judge? Preposterous.

Somehow I doubt you would be bringing up a straight judges sexual orientation if he or she ruled in your favor.

I'll say this for Mookie- unlike some of the other people who didn't see the ignorance and bigotry in their position on this judge, Mookie has been a homophobic gay-basher for as long as I can remember. Saying that a gay judge is inferior to a straight judge solely by virtue of his gay-ness is entirely consistent with his past posts. Gotta give him that.

 

[scoobygang]

I don't remember all of this concern about the anti-democratic nature of the process when Kennedy joined 5-4 majorities in Heller McDonald and Citizens United.

 

[jonessed]

The gay judge? Preposterous.

Somehow I doubt you would be bringing up a straight judges sexual orientation if he or she ruled in your favor.

I'll say this for Mookie- unlike some of the other people who didn't see the ignorance and bigotry in their position on this judge, Mookie has been a homophobic gay-basher for as long as I can remember. Saying that a gay judge is inferior to a straight judge solely by virtue of his gay-ness is entirely consistent with his past posts. Gotta give him that.

I think he tipped his hand when he tried to have the trial televised. When the 9th circuit shut him down he tried to get it on YouTube. It finally took the Supreme Court to tell him to cut it out before he completely gave up on trying to publicize the event.I really don't think it is that much of a stretch to believe he was trying to make a statement with the trial.

 

[jon_mx]

I don't remember all of this concern about the anti-democratic nature of the process when Kennedy joined 5-4 majorities in Heller McDonald and Citizens United.

There is a difference when the rights are enumerated in the Constitution. The right to bear arms and free speech are clearly called out and have been ratified through the proper channels. When a judge uses his personal opinion to elevate something to a Constitutional Right, the process becomes way out of balance. The judge has basically become king and is able to create law that is extremely difficult to overturn.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The gay judge? Preposterous.

Somehow I doubt you would be bringing up a straight judges sexual orientation if he or she ruled in your favor.

I'll say this for Mookie- unlike some of the other people who didn't see the ignorance and bigotry in their position on this judge, Mookie has been a homophobic gay-basher for as long as I can remember. Saying that a gay judge is inferior to a straight judge solely by virtue of his gay-ness is entirely consistent with his past posts. Gotta give him that.

I think he tipped his hand when he tried to have the trial televised. When the 9th circuit shut him down he tried to get it on YouTube. It finally took the Supreme Court to tell him to cut it out before he completely gave up on trying to publicize the event.I really don't think it is that much of a stretch to believe he was trying to make a statement with the trial.

You think every judge that seeks to have a matter before him televised/publicized has decided how he will rule prior to hearing the case? Or just the gay ones?

 

[scoobygang]

I don't remember all of this concern about the anti-democratic nature of the process when Kennedy joined 5-4 majorities in Heller McDonald and Citizens United.

There is a difference when the rights are enumerated in the Constitution. The right to bear arms and free speech are clearly called out and have been ratified through the proper channels. When a judge uses his personal opinion to elevate something to a Constitutional Right, the process becomes way out of balance. The judge has basically become king and is able to create law that is extremely difficult to overturn.

The 14th amendment is part of the constitution.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

David Boies and Tony Perkins on Face the Nation. Worth watching.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't remember all of this concern about the anti-democratic nature of the process when Kennedy joined 5-4 majorities in Heller McDonald and Citizens United.

There is a difference when the rights are enumerated in the Constitution. The right to bear arms and free speech are clearly called out and have been ratified through the proper channels. When a judge uses his personal opinion to elevate something to a Constitutional Right, the process becomes way out of balance. The judge has basically become king and is able to create law that is extremely difficult to overturn.

The right to equal protection has been clearly called out and ratified through the proper channels. Many people disagree with the way some judges have interpreted the Second Amendment to include non-militia keeping and bearing of arms. Many people disagree with the application of personal free speech rights to political contributions by for-profit corporations. How is this different? (Hint- it's different because you liked how the judges decided on the free speech and gun issues and don't like how the judge decided here. In other words, you're acting like a spoiled child).

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

The gay judge? Preposterous.

Somehow I doubt you would be bringing up a straight judges sexual orientation if he or she ruled in your favor.

I'll say this for Mookie- unlike some of the other people who didn't see the ignorance and bigotry in their position on this judge, Mookie has been a homophobic gay-basher for as long as I can remember. Saying that a gay judge is inferior to a straight judge solely by virtue of his gay-ness is entirely consistent with his past posts. Gotta give him that.

Homophobic gay basher or not, I don't think this is about bigotry. I think its more-than-possible this judge has an agenda. I don't blame him. He's got the power. Why not use it for what you believe in, right? But it sure doesn't look right. I don't guess how the gay community cares one way or another how this looks, though. For my money, however, with this judge on this case, it doesn't look like much of a ruling.

 

[jonessed]

The gay judge? Preposterous.

Somehow I doubt you would be bringing up a straight judges sexual orientation if he or she ruled in your favor.

I'll say this for Mookie- unlike some of the other people who didn't see the ignorance and bigotry in their position on this judge, Mookie has been a homophobic gay-basher for as long as I can remember. Saying that a gay judge is inferior to a straight judge solely by virtue of his gay-ness is entirely consistent with his past posts. Gotta give him that.

I think he tipped his hand when he tried to have the trial televised. When the 9th circuit shut him down he tried to get it on YouTube. It finally took the Supreme Court to tell him to cut it out before he completely gave up on trying to publicize the event.I really don't think it is that much of a stretch to believe he was trying to make a statement with the trial.

You think every judge that seeks to have a matter before him televised/publicized has decided how he will rule prior to hearing the case? Or just the gay ones?

I think any judge that actively seeks to televise his trial agains the wishes of either party has a good chance of already being predisposed to rule one way or the other.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think any judge that actively seeks to televise his trial agains the wishes of either party has a good chance of already being predisposed to rule one way or the other.

You mean if either party doesn't want it televised? Or if both parties don't want it televised? Because in this instance I'm pretty sure the anti-Prop 8 people wanted it televised, as did the media of course. It was only one of the parties that didn't want it televised.The obvious follow-up question, of course, is ... why? Why were the pro-Prop 8 people ashamed to have their arguments aired publicly? What does it tell you about their position that it appears to come with a side helping of shame or negative association?

 

[Mookie Blaylock]

I think any judge that actively seeks to televise his trial agains the wishes of either party has a good chance of already being predisposed to rule one way or the other.

You mean if either party doesn't want it televised? Or if both parties don't want it televised? Because in this instance I'm pretty sure the anti-Prop 8 people wanted it televised, as did the media of course. It was only one of the parties that didn't want it televised.The obvious follow-up question, of course, is ... why? Why were the pro-Prop 8 people ashamed to have their arguments aired publicly? What does it tell you about their position that it appears to come with a side helping of shame or negative association?

I love that this is obviously the reason.

 

[badmojo1006]

David Boies and Tony Perkins on Face the Nation. Worth watching.

Tony Perkins gets pwned...

 

[jon_mx]

I don't remember all of this concern about the anti-democratic nature of the process when Kennedy joined 5-4 majorities in Heller McDonald and Citizens United.

There is a difference when the rights are enumerated in the Constitution. The right to bear arms and free speech are clearly called out and have been ratified through the proper channels. When a judge uses his personal opinion to elevate something to a Constitutional Right, the process becomes way out of balance. The judge has basically become king and is able to create law that is extremely difficult to overturn.

The right to equal protection has been clearly called out and ratified through the proper channels. Many people disagree with the way some judges have interpreted the Second Amendment to include non-militia keeping and bearing of arms. Many people disagree with the application of personal free speech rights to political contributions by for-profit corporations. How is this different? (Hint- it's different because you liked how the judges decided on the free speech and gun issues and don't like how the judge decided here. In other words, you're acting like a spoiled child).

Show me where in the Constitution there is a right to marriage or a right to abort and you have a point. The right to bear arms and the right to free speech is enumerated to the people. It takes mental gymnastics to say otherwise. I think the expansion of equal protection to mean the government has to treat all people equally in all cases is a bar that the government can never live up to. A strict interpretation would strike down our tax code. There is no way you can rationally make an argument that the tax code treats all people equally. It is makes sense where there is real oppression. I just see gay marriage as grossly overblown. There is nothing the government is doing that makes it so they can't enjoy live and do everything they want to do. Gays can 'marry' all they want.

 

[dparker713]

Who do they think they are, persons appointed to one of the three branches of the federal government as set forth in the United States Constitution and tasked with the interpretation and application of the law? Please.

Actually, the Supreme Court decided for itself that Constitutional interpretation is the perview of Article III courts. It's most certainly not set forth in the Constitution that way.

 

[dparker713]

I think any judge that actively seeks to televise his trial agains the wishes of either party has a good chance of already being predisposed to rule one way or the other.

You mean if either party doesn't want it televised? Or if both parties don't want it televised? Because in this instance I'm pretty sure the anti-Prop 8 people wanted it televised, as did the media of course. It was only one of the parties that didn't want it televised.The obvious follow-up question, of course, is ... why? Why were the pro-Prop 8 people ashamed to have their arguments aired publicly? What does it tell you about their position that it appears to come with a side helping of shame or negative association?

By your logic, the Supreme Court is ashamed to have their arguments about any subject aired publicly.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I think any judge that actively seeks to televise his trial agains the wishes of either party has a good chance of already being predisposed to rule one way or the other.

You mean if either party doesn't want it televised? Or if both parties don't want it televised? Because in this instance I'm pretty sure the anti-Prop 8 people wanted it televised, as did the media of course. It was only one of the parties that didn't want it televised.The obvious follow-up question, of course, is ... why? Why were the pro-Prop 8 people ashamed to have their arguments aired publicly? What does it tell you about their position that it appears to come with a side helping of shame or negative association?

By your logic, the Supreme Court is ashamed to have their arguments about any subject aired publicly.

last time I checked, the Supreme Court is not a party arguing a position.

 

[jonessed]

I think any judge that actively seeks to televise his trial agains the wishes of either party has a good chance of already being predisposed to rule one way or the other.

You mean if either party doesn't want it televised? Or if both parties don't want it televised? Because in this instance I'm pretty sure the anti-Prop 8 people wanted it televised, as did the media of course. It was only one of the parties that didn't want it televised.The obvious follow-up question, of course, is ... why? Why were the pro-Prop 8 people ashamed to have their arguments aired publicly? What does it tell you about their position that it appears to come with a side helping of shame or negative association?

If either party is against it beause they feel it would be unfair. Televising federal trials was not allowed in CA at the time. Walker went out of his way to try and get the media in. It took both the 9th circuit and the US Supreme Court to finally get him to cut it out.There is no real reason to televise a trial unless it's for entertainment purposes or you are trying to prove a point. I think it would be odd for anyone to try and demonstrate a point without having an idea of what that point was beforehand. Especially one that fought as hard as Walker.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Who do they think they are, persons appointed to one of the three branches of the federal government as set forth in the United States Constitution and tasked with the interpretation and application of the law? Please.

Actually, the Supreme Court decided for itself that Constitutional interpretation is the pervue of Article III courts. It's most certainly not set forth in the Constitution that way.

It's been that way since Marbury v. Madison. Are you telling me that you think jon_mx or Mookie or whoever it was was taking issue with Marbury v. Madison? Come on.ETA- also, "purview."

 

[dparker713]

I think any judge that actively seeks to televise his trial agains the wishes of either party has a good chance of already being predisposed to rule one way or the other.

You mean if either party doesn't want it televised? Or if both parties don't want it televised? Because in this instance I'm pretty sure the anti-Prop 8 people wanted it televised, as did the media of course. It was only one of the parties that didn't want it televised.The obvious follow-up question, of course, is ... why? Why were the pro-Prop 8 people ashamed to have their arguments aired publicly? What does it tell you about their position that it appears to come with a side helping of shame or negative association?

By your logic, the Supreme Court is ashamed to have their arguments about any subject aired publicly.

last time I checked, the Supreme Court is not a party arguing a position.

They've argued repeatedly against the inclusion of cameras in their chamber. And during oral arguments the Justices are often more strenously arguing a position than any of the counsels in the room.

 

[Konotay]

The Prop 8 supporters are standing at the bottom of very high constitutional mountain, and judging from their first attempt, they have absolutely no idea how to climb it.

They screwed up, but as has been pointed out to you already the 'constitutional mountain' they need to climb is hardly insurmountable. Plus, they've already got controlling precedent on their side. Admittedly, its an old precedent that may or may not hold up on appeal, but its there.

The real point is that it doesn't matter what anyone thinks now. Rather than change hearts and minds and win through the legislative process they have decided to allow the judicial branch to make the decision. But it gets worse. We pretty much know that 4 member of the SCOTUS will vote in favor and 4 will vote against gay marriage. There is really only one swing vote which is Justice Kennedy.

So if votes for your position you will cheering his wisdom and understanding of the constitution. If not your stuck with the decision. Nobody's opinion matters anymore. His vote counts more than the 7 million voters who voted for prop 8. It matters more than all the states legislative and Governor's. In matters more that the 435 member's of Congress, 100 US Senators and the POTUS.

The decision will decided by a one vote and only his vote matters. Welcome to judicial tyranny. IMO all the other 8 judges will have strong cases for why the constitution favors their positions. Which leaves us on the outside looking thinking in thinking the judicial process is extremely subjective. That it matters more about who occupies the seats rather than the constitution.

Hypothetical question: If all the SCOTUS were to die by some tragedy when Republican were in charge of the Senate and Presidency. They put in 9 young strict constructionist on the court for the next 40 years. What would you think of the judicial process then? In other words, do you like the process because you have won using this process or do you really like the process? My guess if you consistently loose you would hate the process.

I know, right? What's with these judges enforcing their interpretation of the law over the will of the majority? Who do they think they are, persons appointed to one of the three branches of the federal government as set forth in the United States Constitution and tasked with the interpretation and application of the law? Please.I mean, it's not like the Bill of Rights was set up in large part to protect certain rights against the tyranny of the majority or something. The Founding Fathers can kiss my rear end. Let's just put everything to a vote! Majority rules! Sanctioned racial discrimination/segregation in the south! Warrantless searches of A-rabs! Mandatory prayer at all public gatherings! God bless America!

Your point is that the SOTUS protects our civil liberties which is a valid point. But it also raises questions:1. What happens when the SCOTUS over reaches? Do we have any realistic checks an balances when they over reach? No.

In truth you like the Judaical process because liberals have won huge victories that did not require legislative approval. But if you started loosing those decisions would your tone change.

 

[dparker713]

Who do they think they are, persons appointed to one of the three branches of the federal government as set forth in the United States Constitution and tasked with the interpretation and application of the law? Please.

Actually, the Supreme Court decided for itself that Constitutional interpretation is the pervue of Article III courts. It's most certainly not set forth in the Constitution that way.

It's been that way since Marbury v. Madison. Are you telling me that you think jon_mx or Mookie or whoever it was was taking issue with Marbury v. Madison? Come on.ETA- also, "purview."

My point has nothing to do with the arguments of jon_mx or Mookie, only with the accuracy of your statement.

 

[Konotay]

The gay judge? Preposterous.

Somehow I doubt you would be bringing up a straight judges sexual orientation Mormon activist Judge if he or she ruled in your favor.

Fixed but you would be screaming blood murder.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't remember all of this concern about the anti-democratic nature of the process when Kennedy joined 5-4 majorities in Heller McDonald and Citizens United.

There is a difference when the rights are enumerated in the Constitution. The right to bear arms and free speech are clearly called out and have been ratified through the proper channels. When a judge uses his personal opinion to elevate something to a Constitutional Right, the process becomes way out of balance. The judge has basically become king and is able to create law that is extremely difficult to overturn.

The right to equal protection has been clearly called out and ratified through the proper channels. Many people disagree with the way some judges have interpreted the Second Amendment to include non-militia keeping and bearing of arms. Many people disagree with the application of personal free speech rights to political contributions by for-profit corporations. How is this different? (Hint- it's different because you liked how the judges decided on the free speech and gun issues and don't like how the judge decided here. In other words, you're acting like a spoiled child).

Show me where in the Constitution there is a right to marriage or a right to abort and you have a point. The right to bear arms and the right to free speech is enumerated to the people. It takes mental gymnastics to say otherwise. I think the expansion of equal protection to mean the government has to treat all people equally in all cases is a bar that the government can never live up to. A strict interpretation would strike down our tax code. There is no way you can rationally make an argument that the tax code treats all people equally. It is makes sense where there is real oppression. I just see gay marriage as grossly overblown. There is nothing the government is doing that makes it so they can't enjoy live and do everything they want to do. Gays can 'marry' all they want.

Show me where the right to unlimited political donations is enumerated to the people. It isn't- it's an interpretation of the right to free speech, a strict "by the dictionary" reading of which includes neither corporations or financial activity. Other than a very few obviously enumerated rights, it's all interpretation. You just agree with some, so you call them "enumerated," and disagree with others, so you call them "mental gymnastics." The rest of your arguments, are frankly, a waste of time. I understand how equal protection law works- we apply varying levels of scrutiny, and this didn't even pass the lowest level. The tax thing is silly- as it would pass the lowest level. As is your notion that they can "marry" all they want. They can't marry each other, so they're not getting equal protection. Case closed.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Who do they think they are, persons appointed to one of the three branches of the federal government as set forth in the United States Constitution and tasked with the interpretation and application of the law? Please.

Actually, the Supreme Court decided for itself that Constitutional interpretation is the pervue of Article III courts. It's most certainly not set forth in the Constitution that way.

It's been that way since Marbury v. Madison. Are you telling me that you think jon_mx or Mookie or whoever it was was taking issue with Marbury v. Madison? Come on.ETA- also, "purview."

My point has nothing to do with the arguments of jon_mx or Mookie, only with the accuracy of your statement.

Fair enough. I should have said "by the Founding Fathers."

 

[dparker713]

As is your notion that they can "marry" all they want. They can't marry each other, so they're not getting equal protection. Case closed.

Marrying each other would be a collective right. Thats not entirely foreign under the US Constitution, but it is quite rare. Most rights are individual, not collective.

 

[TobiasFunke]

As is your notion that they can "marry" all they want. They can't marry each other, so they're not getting equal protection. Case closed.

Marrying each other would be a collective right. Thats not entirely foreign under the US Constitution, but it is quite rare. Most rights are individual, not collective.

You are prohibited from marrying someone of the same gender. It's an individual prohibition, just like a prohibition on marrying someone of a different race.

 

[Konotay]

What you fail to realize is that the arguments supporting Prop 8 need not be persuasive, merely suffficent.

Right, and what you threw down was clearly insufficient.

Or the judge had made up his mind before the trial and was looking for justification to back up his case.

So you say the Judge is openly gay and wanted to make a statement? Why didn't the defense challenge him to recuse himself based on his inherent bias? If that was such a big deal and it was openly known then, why didn't the defense challenge him? Either the defense attorneys were really incompetent or the realized he was a fair and impartial Justice? You do remember this Judge was first attempted to be appointed to the bench by Ronald Regan? But was opposed by Nancy Pelosi because of his supposed anti-gay bias?

Judge David Souter and John Paul Stevens where appointed by Republicans and ended up being very liberal. But tacitly you are admitting that the law is predicated on who the judge and his/her POV rather than the constitution. It truth it should not matter who nominated the judge because they are suppose to interpret the law and not make it.BTW it was interesting to watch the Kagen and Sotomayor's screening process. You would think they were strict constructionist. Which goes to the point- they pretended to be strict constructionist because that is what we want. We do not want judicial activists who believe in a living and breathing constitution and take European law as precedent. They talk one way to get pass the screening process and will act another.

 

[Konotay]

The gay judge? Preposterous.

Somehow I doubt you would be bringing up a straight judges sexual orientation if he or she ruled in your favor.

I'll say this for Mookie- unlike some of the other people who didn't see the ignorance and bigotry in their position on this judge, Mookie has been a homophobic gay-basher for as long as I can remember. Saying that a gay judge is inferior to a straight judge solely by virtue of his gay-ness is entirely consistent with his past posts. Gotta give him that.

Calling people bigots is an extremely lazy arguement for someone of your education.

 

[Konotay]

The gay judge? Preposterous.

Somehow I doubt you would be bringing up a straight judges sexual orientation if he or she ruled in your favor.

I'll say this for Mookie- unlike some of the other people who didn't see the ignorance and bigotry in their position on this judge, Mookie has been a homophobic gay-basher for as long as I can remember. Saying that a gay judge is inferior to a straight judge solely by virtue of his gay-ness is entirely consistent with his past posts. Gotta give him that.

I think he tipped his hand when he tried to have the trial televised. When the 9th circuit shut him down he tried to get it on YouTube. It finally took the Supreme Court to tell him to cut it out before he completely gave up on trying to publicize the event.I really don't think it is that much of a stretch to believe he was trying to make a statement with the trial.

True, he could be an activist judge because this decision with give power and prestige with the media and his liberal cohorts. It may have nothing to do with his sexual preference.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

What you fail to realize is that the arguments supporting Prop 8 need not be persuasive, merely suffficent.

Right, and what you threw down was clearly insufficient.

Or the judge had made up his mind before the trial and was looking for justification to back up his case.

What part of the opinion do you point to as evidence of this?

:crickets:

 

[TobiasFunke]

The gay judge? Preposterous.

Somehow I doubt you would be bringing up a straight judges sexual orientation if he or she ruled in your favor.

I'll say this for Mookie- unlike some of the other people who didn't see the ignorance and bigotry in their position on this judge, Mookie has been a homophobic gay-basher for as long as I can remember. Saying that a gay judge is inferior to a straight judge solely by virtue of his gay-ness is entirely consistent with his past posts. Gotta give him that.

Calling people bigots is an extremely lazy arguement for someone of your education.

Not sure how you're familiar with my education. But in previous threads, Mookie has come right out and said he doesn't particularly care for the gays. I think he's probably fishing, but I wasn't saying anything about him that he hadn't said about himself.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The gay judge? Preposterous.

Somehow I doubt you would be bringing up a straight judges sexual orientation if he or she ruled in your favor.

I'll say this for Mookie- unlike some of the other people who didn't see the ignorance and bigotry in their position on this judge, Mookie has been a homophobic gay-basher for as long as I can remember. Saying that a gay judge is inferior to a straight judge solely by virtue of his gay-ness is entirely consistent with his past posts. Gotta give him that.

Calling people bigots is an extremely lazy arguement for someone of your education.

Not sure how you're familiar with my education. But in previous threads, Mookie has come right out and said he doesn't particularly care for the gays. I think he's probably fishing, but I wasn't saying anything about him that he hadn't said about himself.

I think that's why Konotoy called you lazy. You need to be more creative.

 

[Konotay]

What you fail to realize is that the arguments supporting Prop 8 need not be persuasive, merely suffficent.

Right, and what you threw down was clearly insufficient.

Or the judge had made up his mind before the trial and was looking for justification to back up his case.

What part of the opinion do you point to as evidence of this?

:crickets:

For your information you are on ignore. I will not respond to your posts because I will not see your posts.