The Supreme Court

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
the judges DID overstep their bounds. they rendered a legal vote into nothingness. the constitution offers no insights into gay marriage. the "interpretation" can be sourced from judicial activism, not ethical legal review.

from a legal perspective - they failed to meet the standards.

1) This ruling was based on the California constitution, not the US Constitution
2) In either case, both Constitutions leave out a lot of potential things because you can't think of everything AND societies change over time. Hence, the documents are flexible in their interpretation and what they cover. Plenty of things are not in either of those constitutions, but they are allowed anyway. The US Constitution says nothing about creating a standing Air Force, but we still have one (it only mentions army and navy). Nothing about creating a central banking system, but we still have one. The list can go on, but I don't want to bother.

 

[counterstrikedude]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
the judges DID overstep their bounds. they rendered a legal vote into nothingness. the constitution offers no insights into gay marriage. the "interpretation" can be sourced from judicial activism, not ethical legal review.

from a legal perspective - they failed to meet the standards.

1) This ruling was based on the California constitution, not the US Constitution
2) In either case, both Constitutions leave out a lot of potential things because you can't think of everything AND societies change over time. Hence, the documents are flexible in their interpretation and what they cover. Plenty of things are not in either of those constitutions, but they are allowed anyway. The US Constitution says nothing about creating a standing Air Force, but we still have one (it only mentions army and navy). Nothing about creating a central banking system, but we still have one. The list can go on, but I don't want to bother.

irrelevant. our banking and naval systems aren't dependent on the constitution - they evolved independently. a constitution doesn't dictate the process of society, only government. this gay agenda is a societal issue, being painted as an equal right.

but that doesn't negate my previous point - the california judicial process is severely flawed. according to your theory, any prop or law passed by the people could be void pending a disgruntled judge's opinion.

it's absurdity of the highest order.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
the judges DID overstep their bounds. they rendered a legal vote into nothingness. the constitution offers no insights into gay marriage. the "interpretation" can be sourced from judicial activism, not ethical legal review.

from a legal perspective - they failed to meet the standards.

1) This ruling was based on the California constitution, not the US Constitution
2) In either case, both Constitutions leave out a lot of potential things because you can't think of everything AND societies change over time. Hence, the documents are flexible in their interpretation and what they cover. Plenty of things are not in either of those constitutions, but they are allowed anyway. The US Constitution says nothing about creating a standing Air Force, but we still have one (it only mentions army and navy). Nothing about creating a central banking system, but we still have one. The list can go on, but I don't want to bother.

irrelevant. our banking and naval systems aren't dependent on the constitution - they evolved independently. a constitution doesn't dictate the process of society, only government. this gay agenda is a societal issue, being painted as an equal right.

but that doesn't negate my previous point - the california judicial process is severely flawed. according to your theory, any prop or law passed by the people could be void pending a disgruntled judge's opinion.

it's absurdity of the highest order.

So if the California people made a law through majority saying that black people couldn't get married to white people, you'd support it because it's a societal issue?

The only absurdity in this issue is you and you're ridiculous thread.

 

[counterstrikedude]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
the judges DID overstep their bounds. they rendered a legal vote into nothingness. the constitution offers no insights into gay marriage. the "interpretation" can be sourced from judicial activism, not ethical legal review.

from a legal perspective - they failed to meet the standards.

1) This ruling was based on the California constitution, not the US Constitution
2) In either case, both Constitutions leave out a lot of potential things because you can't think of everything AND societies change over time. Hence, the documents are flexible in their interpretation and what they cover. Plenty of things are not in either of those constitutions, but they are allowed anyway. The US Constitution says nothing about creating a standing Air Force, but we still have one (it only mentions army and navy). Nothing about creating a central banking system, but we still have one. The list can go on, but I don't want to bother.

irrelevant. our banking and naval systems aren't dependent on the constitution - they evolved independently. a constitution doesn't dictate the process of society, only government. this gay agenda is a societal issue, being painted as an equal right.

but that doesn't negate my previous point - the california judicial process is severely flawed. according to your theory, any prop or law passed by the people could be void pending a disgruntled judge's opinion.

it's absurdity of the highest order.

So if the California people made a law through majority saying that black people couldn't get married to white people, you'd support it because it's a societal issue?

The only absurdity in this issue is you and you're ridiculous thread.

nice spin, no i didn't say that. im saying equality is a reasonable quality, but gay's getting married is not a constitutional complaint. it's being INTERPRETED as that, but it isn't. the interpretation itself is flawed, and thus the process is flawed. you achieve your goal through emotion, and prove it with rationalizations.

only in california.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
the judges DID overstep their bounds. they rendered a legal vote into nothingness. the constitution offers no insights into gay marriage. the "interpretation" can be sourced from judicial activism, not ethical legal review.

from a legal perspective - they failed to meet the standards.

1) This ruling was based on the California constitution, not the US Constitution
2) In either case, both Constitutions leave out a lot of potential things because you can't think of everything AND societies change over time. Hence, the documents are flexible in their interpretation and what they cover. Plenty of things are not in either of those constitutions, but they are allowed anyway. The US Constitution says nothing about creating a standing Air Force, but we still have one (it only mentions army and navy). Nothing about creating a central banking system, but we still have one. The list can go on, but I don't want to bother.

irrelevant. our banking and naval systems aren't dependent on the constitution - they evolved independently. a constitution doesn't dictate the process of society, only government. this gay agenda is a societal issue, being painted as an equal right.

but that doesn't negate my previous point - the california judicial process is severely flawed. according to your theory, any prop or law passed by the people could be void pending a disgruntled judge's opinion.

it's absurdity of the highest order.

Supreme Court justices sit on a panel. It's not a single judge that overturns it. Secondly, state supreme court judges have to campaign to voters because they can be removed by the public unlike the USSC justices; so if the people are truly dissatisfied, they can make their voices known.

You really need to take a second and figure out what the judicial process is first before making flawed points.

 

[alien42]

the Supreme Court is safe. that would have been the hardest blow to this country if McCain had won.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

nice spin, no i didn't say that. im saying equality is a reasonable quality, but gay's getting married is not a constitutional complaint. it's being INTERPRETED as that, but it isn't. the interpretation itself is flawed, and thus the process is flawed. you achieve your goal through emotion, and prove it with rationalizations.

only in california.

You can't just spout that it's being interpreted incorrectly as a constitutional issue. Feel free to offer some fact that shows that it isn't a constitutional issue.

 

[counterstrikedude]

Originally posted by: alien42
the Supreme Court is safe. that would have been the hardest blow to this country if McCain had won.

yeah, one party rule in congress, executive, and judicial.

just what we need!

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
the judges DID overstep their bounds. they rendered a legal vote into nothingness. the constitution offers no insights into gay marriage. the "interpretation" can be sourced from judicial activism, not ethical legal review.

from a legal perspective - they failed to meet the standards.

1) This ruling was based on the California constitution, not the US Constitution
2) In either case, both Constitutions leave out a lot of potential things because you can't think of everything AND societies change over time. Hence, the documents are flexible in their interpretation and what they cover. Plenty of things are not in either of those constitutions, but they are allowed anyway. The US Constitution says nothing about creating a standing Air Force, but we still have one (it only mentions army and navy). Nothing about creating a central banking system, but we still have one. The list can go on, but I don't want to bother.

irrelevant. our banking and naval systems aren't dependent on the constitution - they evolved independently. a constitution doesn't dictate the process of society, only government. this gay agenda is a societal issue, being painted as an equal right.

but that doesn't negate my previous point - the california judicial process is severely flawed. according to your theory, any prop or law passed by the people could be void pending a disgruntled judge's opinion.

it's absurdity of the highest order.

So if the California people made a law through majority saying that black people couldn't get married to white people, you'd support it because it's a societal issue?

The only absurdity in this issue is you and you're ridiculous thread.

nice spin, no i didn't say that. im saying equality is a reasonable quality, but gay's getting married is not a constitutional complaint. it's being INTERPRETED as that, but it isn't. the interpretation itself is flawed, and thus the process is flawed. you achieve your goal through emotion, and prove it with rationalizations.

only in california.

If Gays getting Married is not a Constitutional complaint, then Gays not getting Married is not a Constitutional complaint either.

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: alien42
the Supreme Court is safe. that would have been the hardest blow to this country if McCain had won.

yeah, one party rule in congress, executive, and judicial.

just what we need!

unfortunately the GWB administration screwed things up so badly it was required. Obama is going to be far more centrist than you realize.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: senseamp
The old liberal guard will retire to be replaced with young, healthy liberal lawyers waiting in the wings, hopefully.

Basically what this means it the SCotUS will be have a 5-4 split for a long time to come.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: alien42
the Supreme Court is safe. that would have been the hardest blow to this country if McCain had won.

yeah, one party rule in congress, executive, and judicial.

just what we need!

Obama wont be able to change the SCotUS much. None of the conservative judges are going to retire/die anytime soon. The issue with the SCotUS was there are 1-2 of the liberal judges that will likely retire/die soon. The SCotUS will be 5-4 for decades to come.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: alien42
the Supreme Court is safe. that would have been the hardest blow to this country if McCain had won.

yeah, one party rule in congress, executive, and judicial.

just what we need!

unfortunately the GWB administration screwed things up so badly it was required. Obama is going to be far more centrist than you realize.

Thats because he has to be or he wont get elected in 2012.

 

[Pepsei]

yes, no change in the supreme court unless one of the conservative judge retire/dies....

 

[Craig234]

Obama has saved the nation from a runaway radical right court. He said his model justice is Earl Warren; I agree.

Time and again under Bush, democrat-appointed Judges provided the only check on his abuse of power. We need them in place.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Stevens and Ginsburg will both retire more or less as soon as Obama is inaugurated, and he will pick some very bright, liberal justices to replace them. Beyond that, we shall see . . .

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
yes, no change in the supreme court unless one of the conservative judge retire/dies....

yea but Antonin Scalia is over 70 and is not exactly a model of health?


But it seems its mostly left leaning to moderate judges that are the oldest and dues to reture. Scalia is the onyl one real right wing person who may leave. But he is such a ass I bet he will do everything in his power to stay. Now if Obama/Dem wins in 2012 then i think he will be gone and/or leave then.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Obama has saved the nation from a runaway radical right court. He said his model justice is Earl Warren; I agree.

Time and again under Bush, democrat-appointed Judges provided the only check on his abuse of power. We need them in place.

There's a grand total of two Democrat-appointed justices (Ginsburg and Breyer) currently on the Court, hardly a powerful coalition, which means it took at least three Republican-appointed justices to "check Bush's abuse of power." As usual, Craig234's wrong again.

 

[cKGunslinger]

I do believe that the pro-life/anti-abortion movement has been set back another 40 years or so.

Not that I necessarily think that's a bad thing, but if you're #1 concern was working to get Roe v Wade overturned, you'd probably be pretty bummed right about now.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Craig234
Obama has saved the nation from a runaway radical right court. He said his model justice is Earl Warren; I agree.

Time and again under Bush, democrat-appointed Judges provided the only check on his abuse of power. We need them in place.

There's a grand total of two Democrat-appointed justices (Ginsburg and Breyer) currently on the Court, hardly a powerful coalition, which means it took at least three Republican-appointed justices to "check Bush's abuse of power." As usual, Craig234's wrong again.

Not to dogpile Craig234, but much of what's been said here shows just how far repubs have lurched to the Right. 7 members of the current court are repub appointees, and current sentiment among the ditto-heads is that at least a couple of them are "Leftists!"

"Left" of what, and of whom? The John Birch Society and Orrin Hatch?

So-called "Conservatives" need to take a long hard look at themselves, see if they can find a way to restrain their inner fascists...

My biggest concern wrt the Court is that repubs may try to pull a reverse nuclear option, filibuster any Obama nominees. The Court will still function with only 7 members, which would dilute more reasonable opinions under the weight of the remaining very carefully selected conservative majority...

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I do believe that the pro-life/anti-abortion movement has been set back another 40 years or so.

Not that I necessarily think that's a bad thing, but if you're #1 concern was working to get Roe v Wade overturned, you'd probably be pretty bummed right about now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to agree that this a huge blow to the religious right, this has ended their dream of the courts overturning Roe V Wade for the foreseeable future.

And now the exact final number of democratic seats in the Senate matters. With 56 seats now assuming the replacement resignations of the Senate seats of Biden and Obama return democrats, the four remaining still up in the air contests in places like Alaska, Minnesota, Georgia would all have to go democratic to make the filibuster proof 60 votes.

And the timing of the resignation of various SC judges will matter, Obama may be able to count on a honeymoon period, after that the opposition will stiffen.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: alien42
the Supreme Court is safe. that would have been the hardest blow to this country if McCain had won.

yeah, one party rule in congress, executive, and judicial.

just what we need!

unfortunately the GWB administration screwed things up so badly it was required. Obama is going to be far more centrist than you realize.

I hope so.

I want Obama to bring this country back to the center. He has a semi-unique oppertunity at this point with D controlled congress to go with his presidency. Bush had this and it ended up hurting our country. Clinton had it and for the most part did a good job with it. Obama has the ability to make a dramatic effect on this country, but I hope he brings us back to a centrist country.

 

[Moonbeam]

It is just so sad that the filthy bigotry against gays that gives worthless feeling straight people one of their last topics on which to build sick superiority claims to pat themselves on the back as feeling superior about has reached constitutional proportions. Now the document that is supposed to protect minorities against the hate and stupidity of bigots has specifically been rewritten to allow these filthy pigs the right to discriminate in law. What a profound and deep shame. Prop 8 was funded by some psychopath Mormon money with Tourette syndrome whose life purpose is to create a so called biblical state. What a piece of shit.

The filthy bigotry of bigots looks like it will win, the wonderful gift of lunatic Christians who talk about heaven and create on earth for others a living hell. In this way have they told us who their real god is. These are the real monsters from hell.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So-called "Conservatives" need to take a long hard look at themselves, see if they can find a way to restrain their inner fascists...

Both sides trample liberty; they just do it in different ways. Look at who voted for the majority in the Kelo, allowing gov't to take private property from individual citizens under eminent domain and giving it to developers. Even reliably liberal groups like the NAACP and AARP opposed the Kelo result. Also, the liberal wing of the Court has been no friend to gun rights, despite the clear wording of the Second Amendment, has eroded the First Amendment via campaign finance "reform", and generally supports state-sponsored racism (Affirmative Action).

My biggest concern wrt the Court is that repubs may try to pull a reverse nuclear option, filibuster any Obama nominees. The Court will still function with only 7 members, which would dilute more reasonable opinions under the weight of the remaining very carefully selected conservative majority...

That's just not going to happen.

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I do believe that the pro-life/anti-abortion movement has been set back another 40 years or so.

Not that I necessarily think that's a bad thing, but if you're #1 concern was working to get Roe v Wade overturned, you'd probably be pretty bummed right about now.

right, look at that measure in dakota...(south?).... if they can't get it passed in a red state, how can they sell that to the rest of the people?