Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have to ask, why do folk think SSM will lead to bestiality and polygamy becoming legalised. This is utter crap. Ten years after SA gave the thumbs up for SSM there have been zero petitions for either
Actually there is nothing wrong with Polygamy. If I want 2-3 wives and can support the families that should be my right. Polygamy has been common through out history.
Just like SSM, why are you to tell me who I cannot marry ?
laws are not enacted by the supreme court.. they are upheld or struck down as they apply to the constitution...with regards to common law
if "the people" or "legislators" enact a law that goes against the constitution.. it can be struck down making the law null an void...
I always have to wonder when I hear these conservatives saying.. "these judges are legislating from the bench" I wonder if they even understand how the separate branches of government actually work...
the supreme court did not make gay marriage the law of the land... they only struck down the laws barring it from being the law of the land
Actually, they didn't strike down anything, since they never reached the merits of the case. We simply do not know what would happen if they were to rule on the merits.
They merely ruled that appellants lacked standing to bring the case before them, thereby allowing the 9th circuit ruling to stand.
Correct and that homosexual loving Kennedy threw out motion. I suspected as much.
Kennedy did write a blistering dissent, which I found through a google search that sent me to Daily Kos:
In my view Article III does not require California, when deciding who may appear in court to defend an initiative on its behalf, to comply with the Restatement of Agency or with this Court’s view of how a State should make its laws or structure its government. The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation. In my submission, the Article III requirement for a justiciable case or controversy does not prevent proponents from having their day in court. [Emphasis added by the Kos poster]
While the motion dismissal was correct, the decision itself was a disaster. Since an executive can employ nullification on laws it doesn't like, this decision tells me it's also okay for jurors to nullify laws they don't like.
Kennedy did write a blistering dissent, which I found through a google search that sent me to Daily Kos:
In my view Article III does not require California, when deciding who may appear in court to defend an initiative on its behalf, to comply with the Restatement of Agency or with this Court’s view of how a State should make its laws or structure its government. The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation. In my submission, the Article III requirement for a justiciable case or controversy does not prevent proponents from having their day in court. [Emphasis added by the Kos poster]
While the motion dismissal was correct, the decision itself was a disaster. Since an executive can employ nullification on laws it doesn't like, this decision tells me it's also okay for jurors to nullify laws they don't like.
It set a bad precedent. Kennedy is right in this case but he simply wanted to use the case to push through his gay marriage by fiat.
laws are not enacted by the supreme court.. they are upheld or struck down as they apply to the constitution...with regards to common law
if "the people" or "legislators" enact a law that goes against the constitution.. it can be struck down making the law null an void...
I always have to wonder when I hear these conservatives saying.. "these judges are legislating from the bench" I wonder if they even understand how the separate branches of government actually work...
the supreme court did not make gay marriage the law of the land... they only struck down the laws barring it from being the law of the land...
the court ruled it (referring to the DOMA part) based on a amendment that has nothing to do with same gender "marriage"!
every single one of the authors and people who voted on the amendment would call this legislation from the bench.
You fail to realize the flaw in your argument...The court is not the final say; the people are. Contitutional amendments are the final say. If a majority[3/5th] of the American people want change..any change, then can vote it in.
You seem to be having a problem with simple civics and the US Conatitution...read up.
If you think that the authors of the bill of rights included a "right" to same gender "marriage" you belong in a mental institution.
laws are based on the meaning of the words when people come along and reinterpret the words to suit their own needs, not a single law in this country is immune form Judaical activism.
let's say a supreme court would be majority by a pro slavery, it very easy to reinterpret the 13 amendment to allow it constitutionally.
if you take out the meaning and context of the words of the law, no law has any meaning and the court is the ultimate legislators in the country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
