Discussion in 'Archive: Your Jedi Council Community' started by KnightWriter, Aug 4, 2010.
Yes... but which god?
But what if the judge at the appeal is heterosexual? *gasp* BIAS!!!!11!
So Arlol, do you agree that if a [insert racial/gender/political/ethnic group here] is charged with a crime, the jury should consist entirely of said group?
Arlon. You are thinking of the Pledge of Allegiance, specifically a part that was put there in 1954 in an attempt to inoculate kids against "Godless Communism." The Pledge of Allegiance, while nice, has absolutely no legal significance whatsoever.
The U.S. Constitution, by contrast, is "the supreme law of the land."
To visualize it another way, the Constitution is like the King of America. The pledge is more like the Chirpy, Rather Repetitious Volunteer Mother Aide of America. That is the difference in the level of authority.
I believe you know your Bible, and are a good Christian. Please, please, as a young American of voting age, get to know your Constitution, so you can be a good American citizen as well.
Here is a link to the U.S. Constitution online.
For contrast, here is a link to a list of things that are not in the U.S. Constitution.
Know these things. Be able to refer to them as easily as you can recite passages from Leviticus or Romans. Please do this before entering a voting booth in November.
This will keep all your past teachers from quitting their jobs to shoot heroin and sell scrap metal.
Wait, what's the difference between enjoined and overturned?
This is wonderful news, and I'm glad to see some positivity coming out of politics from here in California. Personally, I'm not a fan of marriage (won't work for me/I never want to do it), but it means a lot to so many people, gays & lesbians included, and they should have the absolute right to marry. Since we all know that is will eventually end up at the Supreme Court, I hope, despite it's Conservative leanings, that they let gay marriage continue here on California. I almost forgot until today that the 2 lawyers who were arguing for Prop. 8 to be overturned were Ted Olsen and David Boies, men were on the opposite side of the Bush/Gore recount fiasco of 2000 (Olson representing Bush, Boies representing Gore). That in itself shows how this issue of gay marriage isn't (or shouldn't be) about party politics.............it's simply about common decency/human rights.
Back-to-Back!: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 L.A. Lakers: World Champions
A writ or process, granted by a court of equity, and, in some cases, under statutes, by a court of law, whereby a party is required to do or to refrain from doing certain acts, according to the exigency of the writ.
To reverse a decision; to overrule or rescind
The latter is final and the former is only for the duration of the case. The injunction is because he knew it would be appealed anyway, and an injunction is issued if it's important to stop something even while the case is going through an appeals process.
Right now he's stayed his ruling until Friday so he can hear arguments again, but that's temporary. After that, Prop 8 will effectively be voided until a higher court makes a decision on it.
Is there something you would like to tell us?
Not necessarily. The issue before Walker is whether gay marriages can go forward pending the outcome of the appeal. As I understand it the issue is whether the stay will remain until the appellate process is over with. The argument in support of keeping the stay is "what happens to marriages performed pending the outcome of the appeals if Prop 8 is ultimately upheld by the USSC?" Personally, I think the argument is illusory but that's what Walker has asked counsel to brief and argue by Friday.
So it is now against the US Constitution to not allow gay marriage? Funny thing to argue for people so bent out of shape for Utahans getting disproportionately involved in California's laws.
I don't support gay marriage, but I was more than happy to not destroy our democratic system if I lost the debate at the ballot box. And if the Supreme Court overturns this decision, all I will be able to do is laugh at the people decrying "judicial activism." Sure you can make up "CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" that never even entered the thoughts of anyone previously in our nation's history every time you want a policy change, but just remember, when everything's protected, nothing will be.
You really want a replay of Roe v. Wade? Because that surely settled once and for all abortion in this country.
People accuse those against gay marriage of arguing in bad faith in the Prop 8 debate, but how much more disingenuous can you get to ask people to vote for or against something when you have no intention of following that result?
Gay marriage is not and has never been a civil right under the US Constitution. The courts are not able to settle such questions as these, all they do is divide society and create permanent opposition that can never be silenced because the losers don't view the "victory" as legitimate. And stroke by stroke the judiciary loses its legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
A small minority of the majority whose votes were declared invalid will be motivated far more by this type of thing than by any talk radio host to engage in violence. You can't set aside popular votes without consequences. It doesn't work when it is a tin pot dictator, and it doesn't work when it is an unelected judge making a policy statement under the false and illegitimate guise of a Constitutional Protection.
And really all that opposition to Mormons for their involvement because not all of them were in California now look like idiots because this judge is attempting to force Utah to accept gay marriage. So it wasn't fine when concerned citizens you disagreed with acted one way (even though nobody complained about out of state gays), but it is fine for one judge to tell us what to do? I've always held that gay marriage should be left up to the states, and I suspect that there is a pretty good chance given the Supreme Court's current makeup this won't last.
The truth -- well, the truth is that I've had a long-standing problem with heroin addiction. I've been known to sniff it, smoke it, swallow it, stick it up my arse and inject it into my veins. I've been trying to combat this addiction, but unless you count social security scams and shoplifting, I haven't had a regular job in years. I feel it's important to mention this.
turns out that the sanctity of majority rule becomes less important when the topic is the rights of a minority, espaldy. hth
Mm, I see. I was told differently, but this makes more sense.
And if the Supreme Court overturns this decision, all I will be able to do is laugh at the people decrying "judicial activism.
Except that if Kerry had won in 2004, Roberts and Alito wouldn't be on the Court, and this decision being upheld would be all but a foregone conclusion. When the law is so connected to politics, that shows you how subjective it can be. I think Judge Walker wrote a very damning opinion that will echo through well into the future, but all of that could be moot when you have Antonin "icky" Scalia on the Court, along with several others like him (it's "icky" seemed to be the basis of his dissent in Lawrence).
It's somewhat remarkable to me that Walker found that there no "rational basis" for the law exists. That's a pretty low bar in terms of EP analysis. It just goes to show how "uncommonly silly" (to quote Justice Thomas) Prop 8 actually is.
EDIT: KW--don't underestimate this Court and the damage it can do to civil rights. The only hope I have is that the "uncommonly silly" concept will prevail and the justices will actually do the right thing.
Yep it is pretty hard to fight minority rights that are literally pulled out your ***.
Everything that is illegal or prohibited could be considered a minority right. The question is who is the minority, and where does the right come from? Find for me the Constitutional Right to privacy and gay marriage in the actual Constitution. Oh Yes, it's right there next to Liberty of Contract.
stopped reading at this point
Walker destroyed the Prop 8 backers in his decision, and basically threw out the testimony of the one witness for the defense. It is as magnificently one-sided and powerful as any decision you'll ever see, I think. The Prop 8 folks were humbled by the bipartisan team the plaintiffs used, and had no answer for their considerable evidence other than opinion that isn't particularly more weighty than any that can be found here.
polymath: Point well taken, but Roberts is not stupid, and he knows he'll have to tread carefully to maintain credibility if he wants to overturn this decision. What the Court says goes, but whether the legal community accepts it outside those already predisposed to it is another story.
Um, every American should be thanking the Griswold court for ruling that the Constitution contains a right to privacy.
Yes, because *you* are personally affected when two people of the same gender want to get married.