Breaking News - CA Supreme Court will hear arguments against Prop H8 (generations, Obama)
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.
It's another balance of power. In a true democracy the persuasion of the people has to be expressed. Most issues do not go this far but the court has to struggle with doing what is right & face the consequences. That's how we grow as a society.
Listen to yourself. We are talking about a court, reviewing cases of constitutionality, and you are talking about allowing the 'persuasion of the people' to be expressed? You have basically just advocated that the people be able to intimidate judges and justices away from deciding with objective and impartial minds.
In California, there have been numerous recall efforts of judges; sometimes they've been successful, sometimes they have not.
In the late 1990s, voters approved a measure which would require minors to get parental approval before having an abortion. The law was overturned by the Supreme Court and a recall effort was launched. The two judges who were targeted won reelection easily.
On the other hand, three judges were removed by voters in the 1970s due to their opposition to the death penalty.
From the L.A. Times today, about one of the judges who was removed by the voters:
Kaus [later] said that as hard as he tried to decide cases impartially, he was never sure whether the threat of a recall election was influencing his votes.
"It was like finding a crocodile in your bathtub when you go to shave in the morning," Kaus said. "You know it's there, and you try not to think about it, but it's hard to think about much else while you're shaving."
My opinion: It's utterly ridiculous that a judge should have to work in that manner. What's the point of having a judge when he or she feels pressured by the public? He's no longer able to impartially interpret the law; instead, he's bullied by the masses.
It makes a mockery of the phrase "justice for all".
Although I disagree with Prop 8, I think the lawsuits are very silly... The courts have NO privileges in enacting laws.. that belongs to Congress and the People... courts are only to enforce laws and to disallow laws that infringe on the Constitution.. they are NOT to interpret laws as the lawsuit is suggesting... that is Congress's job... Although I disagree with Prop 8, I feel these groups are settling for an otherwise unethical approach... you can't solve a wrong with another wrong..
The Legislative Branch (Congress or the State Assembly) makes the laws, the Executive Branch (President or Governor) enforces the law, and the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court), interprets them.
As a firm believer in the US Constitution, I have no problem with the State Supreme Court reviewing this case:
Mike, unfortunately, the challenge isn't based on the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The challenge is based on the allegation that Prop 8 is a revision to the state constitution, rather than simply an amendment.
Lawyers for No On Prop 8 decided to use that argument so that they could avoid having the case sent to the U.S. Supreme Court. The fear was that, if the U.S. Supreme Court decided against them, the decision would apply to the entire country.
Although I would like to see the challenge succeed, it won't be the end of the world if it does not. There will likely be MANY other routes to legalizing same-sex marriage in the near future. Those who are against same-sex marriage have many reasons to be concerned; those who are in favor of same-sex marriage have many reasons to be hopeful.
All laws passed by the State must abide by the State Constitution.
This has never been and never will be a form of Democratic system where the majority gets to dictate to the other 49% of Americans it's terms. That's why women can vote in this Country. That's why blacks can vote in this country.
You think the rednecks just decided one day to give that right to them???
If California has a strong equal protection clause in it's Constitution that says the sexes must be treated equally under the law and laws cannot discriminate against them then Prop 8 may be considered a revision of that clause.
If California has a strong equal protection clause in it's Constitution that says the sexes must be treated equally under the law and laws cannot discriminate against them then Prop 8 may be considered a revision of that clause.
You say this as if being gay is another sex, almost as if you're saying it's men, women and gay.
Well I didn't see much in California's Constitution but this.
A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws; p
I suppose this is all they have to go on.
One could argue they do have equal protection because the law just says opposite sexes can marry. That doesn't discriminate on gender, only sexual orientation and I can find no protection for sexual orientation in their Constitution.
You say this as if being gay is another sex, almost as if you're saying it's men, women and gay.
I'm not trying to make a legal argument here - this is just an observation and something to think about: Someday it may be argued that there are more than two genders - or at least that there are "sub-gender" or "co-gender" categories, such as:
Male, and then Gay Male
Female, and then Gay Female
Given the physical differences found recently between heterosexual and homosexual brains, this might not be such a wild idea - at least not as wild as it might have been in the past.
And then there are people who are born with both male and female genitals. For now, it's seen as a birth defect, but is it really? My mind is open to the possibility that we're not all meant to be one gender or the other.
This is sort of lame Constitution. ( For California standards) You would think they would spell it out that you cannot discriminate on race, gender, creed, etc.
They do somewhat, but the qualify it. "In State hiring" "In State Contacting" ..I'm sure they have laws against discrimination but it's suprising not to see it here.
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.
