Calling guard dog and others

[Gfted1]

Regardless, my example was to prove that it takes almost no effort to "legislate" through the courts. ONE mans opinion trumps millions of registered voters. Sickening.

[Calax]

Regardless, my example was to prove that it takes almost no effort to "legislate" through the courts. ONE mans opinion trumps millions of registered voters. Sickening.

and yet the concerns of 5% of the population trumping the other 95% doesn't?

[Gfted1]

Regardless, my example was to prove that it takes almost no effort to "legislate" through the courts. ONE mans opinion trumps millions of registered voters. Sickening.

and yet the concerns of 5% of the population trumping the other 95% doesn't?

 

Eh, Im not interested in getting into right/wrong. I was simply refuting your statement that "it takes a lot for something to be "legislated" by the courts" when in fact it takes very very little to randomly overthrow a states legally binding constitution. Whats the point in even voting on anything? All we need is a federal judge to decide for us how we should live.

[Monte Carlo]

This is the problem with written constitutions.

 

You need Common Law and the Monarchy. Come back, you know it makes sense.

[Calax]

no, we don't need just one, but at the very minimum of 5 on the SCOTUS.

 

I love how people are griping about this when it's nearly a necessary thing in this society to prevent mob rule, that generates things like slavery, racially discriminatory legislation, sexual discrimination, gerrymandering... Yelling "THE PEOPLE HAVE CHOSEN" and walking off saying that the mob is always right is idiotic. If a person is unable to stand by their personal convictions when they're doing their job, they don't deserve to have that job. The judge you seem to hate prevented what was basically sexual discrimination in his personal view, which should be protected as an equality issue. If he hadn't there was practically 0 chance of repealing said action because of the stupid ease of forcing something into the Cali constitution, and the fact that the Mormon Church lied in a publicity/smear campaign to get prop 8 through. It's the Judiciaries place to go through and decide if something is viable constitutionally, even if it's a state constitutional amendment, it still has to be within the bounds of the federal constitution, and the bill of rights.

 

If you're going to bitch and moan about "tramping over the publics will" go do it at the congress.

[Nepenthe]

Saying "there's room for interpretation" is really just an excuse for judges to legislate

 

At this point, I started laughing so hard tears came from my eyes.

 

Clearly, you have very little grasp of legal decision making as a process. I suggest you check it out - of course, I don't see you as somebody wanting to broaden their horizons, but...

[Gfted1]

no, we don't need just one, but at the very minimum of 5 on the SCOTUS.

 

I love how people are griping about this when it's nearly a necessary thing in this society to prevent mob rule, that generates things like slavery, racially discriminatory legislation, sexual discrimination, gerrymandering... Yelling "THE PEOPLE HAVE CHOSEN" and walking off saying that the mob is always right is idiotic. If a person is unable to stand by their personal convictions when they're doing their job, they don't deserve to have that job. The judge you seem to hate prevented what was basically sexual discrimination in his personal view, which should be protected as an equality issue. If he hadn't there was practically 0 chance of repealing said action because of the stupid ease of forcing something into the Cali constitution, and the fact that the Mormon Church lied in a publicity/smear campaign to get prop 8 through. It's the Judiciaries place to go through and decide if something is viable constitutionally, even if it's a state constitutional amendment, it still has to be within the bounds of the federal constitution, and the bill of rights.

 

If you're going to bitch and moan about "tramping over the publics will" go do it at the congress.

 

Lol, take a deep breath there little fella. I dont hate anyone, or have a stake in the outcome, or even live in said state. I simply refuted the statement you puked forth earlier. Regarding the bolded nonsense, wouldnt the constitution be "stupidly easy" to reammend the other direction or is that only for whoever you disagree with?

[Thorton_AP]

Regarding the bolded nonsense, wouldnt the constitution be "stupidly easy" to reammend the other direction or is that only for whoever you disagree with?

 

It'd be stupidly easy if the majority swung the other way.

 

Does that mean that the original enactment should remain? How do you deal with tyranny of the majority then?

[Calax]

They might be able to get the amendment amended... in 40 years, after the current set of voters have left. Also it should be noted that while the one judge did state that it was overturned, that hasn't had any effect yet pending appeal/review.

 

So basically your "refutation" was an extreme simplification of the fact, and it takes more than just the one thing that you're bitching about to change things given the appeals process. Which was my point, one judge does not have the power to "legislate".

Edited September 20, 2010 by Calax

[Gfted1]

Does that mean that the original enactment should remain? How do you deal with tyranny of the majority then?

 

Dunno. How do you deal with tyranny of the judiciary?

[Calax]

Does that mean that the original enactment should remain? How do you deal with tyranny of the majority then?

 

Dunno. How do you deal with tyranny of the judiciary?

By changing things so that the judiciary doesn't have a leg to stand on because what they declared wrong is no longer that way? I mean in your definition, the president has the ability to be a tyrant by vetoing stuff.

[Thorton_AP]

Does that mean that the original enactment should remain? How do you deal with tyranny of the majority then?

 

Dunno. How do you deal with tyranny of the judiciary?

 

Is this a case of tyranny of the judiciary?

 

I don't remember the full details of the case.

 

 

 

Having said that, as an aside, if the people of a state vote in favor of passing an amendment that violates the US Constitution in some way, what should be done?

[Gfted1]

Is this a case of tyranny of the judiciary?

 

I dont know the details either, I just find it revolting that one person can squash the will of millions who legally ammended their states constitution to reflect their wishes.

 

Having said that, as an aside, if the people of a state vote in favor of passing an amendment that violates the US Constitution in some way, what should be done?

 

Marriage is not protected by the constitution afaik.

[Hurlshort]

The constitution is vague enough where it can be applied to many issues.

[Rostere]

Do you understand rule of law or not? Law doesn't work when judges decide what they want the law to mean, that's tyranny of the judiciary, not democracy or rule of law.

 

This is not a question of what is right and wrong. This is a question of what is actually happening. If you think about it I think you will agree with me.

[Thorton_AP]

Is this a case of tyranny of the judiciary?

 

I dont know the details either, I just find it revolting that one person can squash the will of millions who legally ammended their states constitution to reflect their wishes.

 

I also find it revolting that millions of people feel the need to legislate that people are different shouldn't be granted the same privileges afforded to them. What I don't like is that it looks to me like they're trying to unnecessarily increase the role of government in legislating something like that.

 

Having said that, as an aside, if the people of a state vote in favor of passing an amendment that violates the US Constitution in some way, what should be done?

 

Marriage is not protected by the constitution afaik.

 

I wasn't asking about marriage. I explicitly stated that it was an aside.

 

Would you place no limits on what California citizens amend to their state's constitution simply because the majority agrees upon it?

[Gfted1]

I also find it revolting that millions of people feel the need to legislate that people are different shouldn't be granted the same privileges afforded to them.

 

Good for you? Again, Im not discussing the topic but the legal process. The voters of California, following the letter of the law, changed their state constitution to reflect their wishes and one person has the power to erase that. A state costitutional ammendment was nullified by a handwave! That should make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. How does an ammendment even make the ballot if its illegal/unconstitutional?

 

What I don't like is that it looks to me like they're trying to unnecessarily increase the role of government in legislating something like that.

 

Clarify this position please.

 

Would you place no limits on what California citizens amend to their state's constitution simply because the majority agrees upon it?

 

The only limits should be on things that go against state or federal law.

[Thorton_AP]

What I don't like is that it looks to me like they're trying to unnecessarily increase the role of government in legislating something like that.

 

Clarify this position please.

 

By creating additional legislation, they are requiring the government to oversee and influence people's lives in ways that are not necessary. There is no need for the government or the legal system to get involved with the institution of marriage, yet this is exactly what the voters of California demanded the government do.

 

 

Would you place no limits on what California citizens amend to their state's constitution simply because the majority agrees upon it?

 

The only limits should be on things that go against state or federal law.

 

How is that not still tyranny of the judicial? It's the judicial system vetoing the will of the people.

 

I would also support the judiciary if they stepped in and prevented an amendment that passed that outlawed marriage altogether. This whole situation is people attempting to get the government too needlessly interfere with the lives of other people for no benefit.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Saying "there's room for interpretation" is really just an excuse for judges to legislate

 

At this point, I started laughing so hard tears came from my eyes.

 

Clearly, you have very little grasp of legal decision making as a process. I suggest you check it out - of course, I don't see you as somebody wanting to broaden their horizons, but...

And you have very little grasp of what we're discussing here, or of the American constitutional law.

 

Do you understand rule of law or not? Law doesn't work when judges decide what they want the law to mean, that's tyranny of the judiciary, not democracy or rule of law.

 

This is not a question of what is right and wrong. This is a question of what is actually happening. If you think about it I think you will agree with me.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Judges shouldn't be deciding what's rigtht and wrong, they should be deciding what conforms to the law. The legislators consider right and wrong when they pass the law.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[Oblarg]

I'm not sure what you're saying. Judges shouldn't be deciding what's rigtht and wrong, they should be deciding what conforms to the law. The legislators consider right and wrong when they pass the law.

 

I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees with that.

[Nepenthe]

Saying "there's room for interpretation" is really just an excuse for judges to legislate

 

At this point, I started laughing so hard tears came from my eyes.

 

Clearly, you have very little grasp of legal decision making as a process. I suggest you check it out - of course, I don't see you as somebody wanting to broaden their horizons, but...

And you have very little grasp of what we're discussing here, or of the American constitutional law.

 

Really? I thought I was following it quite well...

[Rostere]

Do you understand rule of law or not? Law doesn't work when judges decide what they want the law to mean, that's tyranny of the judiciary, not democracy or rule of law.

 

This is not a question of what is right and wrong. This is a question of what is actually happening. If you think about it I think you will agree with me.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Judges shouldn't be deciding what's rigtht and wrong, they should be deciding what conforms to the law. The legislators consider right and wrong when they pass the law.

 

Yes, that would be the ideal case. However, a law that accounts for every specific situation is not practically or maybe even theoretically possible. Yet again you go back to talking about what judges "should" do. That is not what I am talking about. My point is that it's impossible to apply any set of laws without interpreting them. What would be the need of law schools if there was no need to interpret the law? If anyone could just look up their case in a book of laws, none of that would have been needed.

 

Judges are forced to assert the truth of sometimes contradictory statements by people and apply the law in situations where the exact wording of the law leaves room for ambiguity all the time. Take a look at this article. Could you from that article determine the exact penalty for any given crime in the category? No, you cannot, and it is blatantly obvious. So assume this is not the first time someone is deemed guilty of the crime in question; you have the luxury of earlier penalties to guide your own judgement. Still, these are originally based on earlier judges' interpretations, and since no crime can be exactly the same to any other (not even theoretically), your judgement will be yet another interpretation to add to the list.

 

This is not about the judges deciding what they want the law to mean, this is about it being THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to not interpret the law.

[Nepenthe]

Do you understand rule of law or not? Law doesn't work when judges decide what they want the law to mean, that's tyranny of the judiciary, not democracy or rule of law.

 

This is not a question of what is right and wrong. This is a question of what is actually happening. If you think about it I think you will agree with me.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Judges shouldn't be deciding what's rigtht and wrong, they should be deciding what conforms to the law. The legislators consider right and wrong when they pass the law.

 

Yes, that would be the ideal case. However, a law that accounts for every specific situation is not practically or maybe even theoretically possible. Yet again you go back to talking about what judges "should" do. That is not what I am talking about. My point is that it's impossible to apply any set of laws without interpreting them. What would be the need of law schools if there was no need to interpret the law? If anyone could just look up their case in a book of laws, none of that would have been needed.

 

Judges are forced to assert the truth of sometimes contradictory statements by people and apply the law in situations where the exact wording of the law leaves room for ambiguity all the time. Take a look at this article. Could you from that article determine the exact penalty for any given crime in the category? No, you cannot, and it is blatantly obvious. So assume this is not the first time someone is deemed guilty of the crime in question; you have the luxury of earlier penalties to guide your own judgement. Still, these are originally based on earlier judges' interpretations, and since no crime can be exactly the same to any other (not even theoretically), your judgement will be yet another interpretation to add to the list.

 

This is not about the judges deciding what they want the law to mean, this is about it being THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to not interpret the law.

 

For the record, that's what I was saying, as well. But since I have no grasp of the discussion, I guess that means you don't, either.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Do you understand rule of law or not? Law doesn't work when judges decide what they want the law to mean, that's tyranny of the judiciary, not democracy or rule of law.

 

This is not a question of what is right and wrong. This is a question of what is actually happening. If you think about it I think you will agree with me.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Judges shouldn't be deciding what's rigtht and wrong, they should be deciding what conforms to the law. The legislators consider right and wrong when they pass the law.

 

Yes, that would be the ideal case. However, a law that accounts for every specific situation is not practically or maybe even theoretically possible. Yet again you go back to talking about what judges "should" do. That is not what I am talking about. My point is that it's impossible to apply any set of laws without interpreting them. What would be the need of law schools if there was no need to interpret the law? If anyone could just look up their case in a book of laws, none of that would have been needed. -snip-

This is not about the judges deciding what they want the law to mean, this is about it being THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to not interpret the law.

I wasn't saying judges shouldn't interpret the law. Clearly their job is to interpret the law. What I'm saying is they need to be completely honest in trying to determine what the original intent of the law was, instead of coming to a conclusion first and then using twisted reasoning to justify why the law says what they want it to say.

[Calax]

Do you understand rule of law or not? Law doesn't work when judges decide what they want the law to mean, that's tyranny of the judiciary, not democracy or rule of law.

 

This is not a question of what is right and wrong. This is a question of what is actually happening. If you think about it I think you will agree with me.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Judges shouldn't be deciding what's rigtht and wrong, they should be deciding what conforms to the law. The legislators consider right and wrong when they pass the law.

 

Yes, that would be the ideal case. However, a law that accounts for every specific situation is not practically or maybe even theoretically possible. Yet again you go back to talking about what judges "should" do. That is not what I am talking about. My point is that it's impossible to apply any set of laws without interpreting them. What would be the need of law schools if there was no need to interpret the law? If anyone could just look up their case in a book of laws, none of that would have been needed. -snip-

This is not about the judges deciding what they want the law to mean, this is about it being THEORETICALLY AND PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to not interpret the law.

I wasn't saying judges shouldn't interpret the law. Clearly their job is to interpret the law. What I'm saying is they need to be completely honest in trying to determine what the original intent of the law was, instead of coming to a conclusion first and then using twisted reasoning to justify why the law says what they want it to say.

And here's where you screw up, you're placing your personal values and desires on the laws interpretation, making it so that YOUR way is the only right way while the judges (who have considerable more knowledge of the law, it's application and inception than either of us) are able to interpret it separately but get cast as writing their own laws if it doesn't conform to your view.