Cali supreme court overturning Prop 8?

[SimonBones 1]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aOsw9p6syk14&refer=us

Let me get this straight...

1) A seven person government panel chose to legalize gay marriage.

2) 52% (majority) in of Californian voters in a democratic state (in a democratic country) vote to amend the CA constitution to stop gay marriage.

3) A seven person government panel considers overturning the vote.

Whether or not you're for or against gay marriage, where is the democracy in this? How are we to stomp around the world forcing other people to take on democratic principles yet we won't allow voters to make the final choice?

The beauty of having 50 states where we all get to make our own laws! It's legal in MA and CT, if you don't like what the CA voters democratically voted for in your state and want to get married gay, why not just move to another state where voters vote for the things you want?

Letting supreme courts decide all of our laws for us is not democracy!

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[quade 3]

Because constitutionally changing the rights of others via a simple majority is a pretty bad way to do thing.

IF you were talking about a trivial issue that didn't impact the rights of others, sure, 52% go right ahead, but fundamental basic human rights really need to be held to a higher standard otherwise minorities really can't have rights at all.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skymiles 3]

The US is a republic not a democracy.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Let me get this straight...

Quote

(in a democratic country)

Well..... technically... it's a republic, not a democracy.

Quote

Letting supreme courts decide all of our laws for us is not democracy!

Edit: Exactly. We aren't a democracy. We're a republic.

Owned by Remi #?

[Amazon 7]

Something VERY important to always remember.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aOsw9p6syk14&refer=us

Let me get this straight...

1) A seven person government panel chose to legalize gay marriage.

2) 52% (majority) in of Californian voters in a democratic state (in a democratic country) vote to amend the CA constitution to stop gay marriage.

3) A seven person government panel considers overturning the vote.

Whether or not you're for or against gay marriage, where is the democracy in this? How are we to stomp around the world forcing other people to take on democratic principles yet we won't allow voters to make the final choice?

The beauty of having 50 states where we all get to make our own laws! It's legal in MA and CT, if you don't like what the CA voters democratically voted for in your state and want to get married gay, why not just move to another state where voters vote for the things you want?

Letting supreme courts decide all of our laws for us is not democracy!

You might want to brush up on basic civics.

The role of Supreme Courts IS to decide if a law is legal, aka, constitutional. This is basic civics that you should have learned in middle school.

There are many historical precedents where the courts have had to set aside laws that were passed BY THE MAJORITY of the voters that turned out to be un-constitutional.
A fine example of this is what happened in California regarding discrimination in housing. Google Proposition 14 and 1964.

Perhaps you should re-direct your outrage to those that would deny equal rights to everyone, gay or straight.

The same bullshit regarding God's will, society will be destroyed, the children will suffer, it is against the laws of nature, etc, etc, was used in opposition to the repeal of the laws against miscgenation. It was bullshit then, and it is still bullshit today.

[SimonBones 1]

Sure, republic v.s. democracy, I know this.

But where is the power of your vote? What good is holding a vote amongst the people at all? It would seem that it wouldn't matter at all which way you voted. A panel of 7 people will eventually choose for you.

What system is it when the vote of the citizens means nothing at all and the government will choose anyway?

They made the majority vote, in a republic, that would still weigh in for something!

108 way head down world record!!!
http://www.simonbones.com
Hit me up on Facebook

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Sure, republic v.s. democracy, I know this.

But where is the power of your vote? What good is holding a vote amongst the people at all? It would seem that it wouldn't matter at all which way you voted. A panel of 7 people will eventually choose for you.

What system is it when the vote of the citizens means nothing at all and the government will choose anyway?

They made the majority vote, in a republic, that would still weigh in for something!

I think you would be happier with a theocracy.... then things like this that YOU and THEY deem as sinful can be prohibited.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

constitutionally changing the rights of others via a simple majority is a pretty bad way to do thing.

Paul - you have stated a very nice political issue.

I'll repeat - that's a political issue.

In the event that I didn't mention it, it's a political question. Yours is not a legal question - which is what judges fucking decide.
by law.

Hey paul - since when is a properly passsed and enacted Constitutional Amendment Unconstitutional? Oh. Since it was something that you don't like?

It was properly approved under the system that was set up. Change the system. The PEOPLE change the system. Not the judges. The People. The Courts are empowered to overturn statutes. They are not empowered to ignore the Constitution.

Are you suggesting that the court IGNORE the rules and write new rules itself? And by the way - the Federal Constitutional issues haven't been raised. The sole argument - that Prop 8 is too mean to be allowed, and the People have zero say over the Constitution. The founders of the California Constitution, they say, wanted their Constitution to be stable.

That's why they have a process for amending it.

Jerry Brown's brief was a wonderful piece of political thought. A gorgeous manifesto of moving prose - that is directly contrary to stare decisis and the law. He's making an argument DIRECTLY CONTRARY to long-established law. Established law is that Constitutional Provisions are treated with "equal dignity." None is better than the other. And yet Brown says this shouldn't matter. Imagine the SCOTUS saying, "The 14th Amednment is directly contrary to the Constitution, intending to supresede it. We find problems with the wisdom of declaring the Negro equal, and we therefore decide that the 14th Amendment, due to conflict with established and settled Constitutional language, is unconstitutional. We shall therefore strike it."

You know, from a political perspective I am absolutely in favor of granting full rights to gays. I voted No on 8.

But - and this is the "but" - to completely destroy the established process is, in my mind, an absolute abomination. To argue that judges should be "above the law" is anathema to the system of checks and balances. And Jery Brown laid down the gauntlet - double dog daring the judges to recognize their superiority over the peasants.

Jerry Brown has deliberately and willfully sold out his client for political gain. The honorable and proper thing to do would be to resign.

"The Attorney General shall attend the Supreme Court and prosecute or defend all causes to which the State, or any State officer is a party in his or her official capacity." Govt. Code section 12512. The State of California is the defendant here. And he deliberately sent his client down the river.

Paul - which is worse? A Proposition that will be up for vote again and again? Or removing the right of the People to have any say whatsoever?

Without established process we are fiat. To ignore it IS the slippery slope.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Jeanne - I find Prop 8 to be abhorrent.

But it was passed the right way. My side lost. And they lost fair and square.

I will not tolerate a "win" through nefarious means. Especially it it involves turning the ENTIRE HISTORY of judicial involvement to the scrap heap to usher in a new era of judicial totalitarianism.

I agree with Jerry Brown's politics. And I think he should be disbarred. And I will vote to kick out every fucking judge that holds to toss this properly passed amendment out.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But where is the power of your vote? What good is holding a vote amongst the people at all? It would seem that it wouldn't matter at all which way you voted. A panel of 7 people will eventually choose for you.

California has a constitution that says people have equality in rights. If the people vote for something that doesn't conflict with that, it stands with those 7. And it's premature to say the state court is going to strike it down.

But personally, I think it's wrong that 52% can eliminate rights. Most of our taxes require a 2/3rds vote and this is another circumstance that calls for a super majority at the very least.

Put it this way, Simon, if the vote was to eliminate interracial marriage or the right of the unmarried to have children, is 52% good enough for you? Is 90%?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

But personally, I think it's wrong that 52% can eliminate rights.

So do I. But our beliefs are not the rule.

So let's have jusdges rewrite the rules, eh?

By the way, what was the voting margin of the orginal Constitution? Hmmm????

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

But personally, I think it's wrong that 52% can eliminate rights.

So do I. But our beliefs are not the rule.

No, our beliefs are the rule, both in the state and federal constitution, and in the founding principles of our nation.

A majority of Congress (and Americans) can pass legislation like COPA, and the courts can kill it. And our history has shown that it is usually the court that has to finally wipe away majority opinion when it conflicts with rights.

[lawrocket 3]

So, courts can declare the constitution unconstitutional?

Really - it's that simple?

Do you understand the difference between legislation and the Constitution? Did you know that the SCOTUS struck down legislation that created an income tax in Pollack v. Farmer's Loan and Trust in 1895? So the 16th Amendment was passed in 1913.

Hmmm. Why didn't the court just strike it down as unconstitutional? No country of peasants is gonna tell it what is right and what is wrong. Overturn us, will you?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[labrys 0]

Quote

A panel of 7 people will eventually choose for you.

Yup... a panel of 7 that the majority either voted into office or were appointed by those who were voted into office by the majority.

Owned by Remi #?

[lawrocket 3]

So what's the point of a Constitution if 7 people can simply strike it?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

It seems SOMEONE put them there to be the ones who decide what is the law and what is not... no matter how many rubes there are that feel the BIBLE is the only law.

[labrys 0]

Quote

So what's the point of a Constitution if 7 people can simply strike it?

Seriously? You know better than that.

Seven random people can't strike the constitution. Seven people duly elected or appointed can make a ruling regarding the intent of the Constitution.

Owned by Remi #?

[quade 3]

Article for those that might not be quite up to date on what's happening.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop-8-spending4-2009feb04,0,3808081.story

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

Paul - which is worse? A Proposition that will be up for vote again and again? Or removing the right of the People to have any say whatsoever?

First, I would like to find this as simply being unconstitutional based on human rights.

Second, I would like to revise the California Constitution so crap like this isn't attempted again with a simple majority vote. While not a "perfect" solution, at least 2/3rd majority should be enacted.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Andy9o8 0]

From the outside (of CA) looking in:
You know, in the U.S., the general policy, and practice, is that amending a constitution - whether federal or state - involves a deliberately cumbersome process of either a constitutional convention and/or some type of supermajority. Cluster-fucks like this are a good example of why that is.

Oh, and to the OP - the article explains that the odds are probably against the CA Supreme Court overturning Prop 8. I'd recommend the decaf.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

So what's the point of a Constitution if 7 people can simply strike it?

It is not that they "don't" get it. I it more that they "won't" get it.

Judges decide law UNDER a Costitutioh, they do not decide the constitution.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,477]

>So let's have jusdges rewrite the rules, eh?

No. Neither judges nor popular vote can "rewrite the rules" without following the rules set in place for changing them. And since Proposition 8 revised the California Constitution (i.e. altered rights already present within it) it cannot be brought to a vote via petitions.

Proposition 8 was never a legal proposition to begin with. If you think the rule of law is important, it's not valid.

[SimonBones 1]

[replyI think you would be happier with a theocracy.... then things like this that YOU and THEY deem as sinful can be prohibited.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

I have a question for you lawyer types. Do the state constitutions recognize the federal constitution as being superior? Is there established law that amounts to the same. I know this case does not invoke the federal constitution yet, but it seems it must eventually go that way.
The argument that the constitution can be unconstitutional internally is, in my view, ludicrous with no precedent anywhere within the Magna Carta family tree.
The concept that it be unconstitutional wrt the superior federal constitution seems more probable, and righteous.