there are serious flaws in your thinking here
random thoughts Send a noteboard - 06/08/2010 06:18:13 PM
If you read the 14th amendment broadly enough in covers anyone who feels they are being mistreated. It would cover things like polygamy since it does not give three people the same rights as two people. It would cover smokers suing because they are being charged more for insurance or overweight people who are being charged more plane tickets.
The 14th being as broad as it is is good thing in many ways but it doesn't give judges the ability to just create any laws they think would be more fair. The amendment should be used to support laws passed int the normal legislative process not create new ones or strike down very old ones. The problem with this situation is the judge is going rogue and not working in conjunction with any other branch of service. I did not read all of the ruling because frankly it doesn't matter what this judge ruled since appeal is certain but what I did read more like the work of an advocate then and unbiased judge.
Yes, in theory similar reasoning could be used to support polygamous marriage. I don't think it would pass all of the criteria the judge presents in his rulings, but I'm not sure of that. Either way, it wouldn't really bother me in principle, although most examples of polygamy in history (ancient and recent) are religious in nature and unlikely to pass a basic test of consent.
The 14th Amendment has no application to prices charged by private insurance or airline companies, so those examples aren't relevant.
would it be legal for airlines to charge more for blacks?
I disagree with your assertion that the 14th (or any other amendment) shouldn't be used to strike down old laws. That's precisely the point of amending the Constitution; it redefines what "Constitutionality" entails, meaning that some laws that were once acceptable aren't any longer. I also think that your assertion that judges should work with "any other branch of service" shows a serious lack of understanding of the intentions behind checks and balances between the branches of government.
If the 14 was passed a few decades ago it might be valid to use it to strike down old laws but since it is about 150 years old I don't believe it is valid for judges now redefine it to mean what they would like it to mean. As you mentioned there is an amendment process and that processes isn't for judges to simply decide old amendments mean new things. The role of the courts is not to change society but to ensure that changes are enacted in accordance with the constitution. Anytime the courts are initiating the change their actions are suspect.
You are the one who is showing a serious lack of understanding of how checks and balance works. Judges should not be create laws or change existing laws to meet their personal ideal of justice and that is what is happening here. A judge wants to change a law to make something legal that has been illegal for virtually the entire history of the nation. This is a major social change for our nation. It is a change I support but it is still and major social change and the check and balance system is designed so that no single branch of government acting alone can enact major social changes but instead require all branches of government acting together. In other words major social should require consent from the people not the will of and rightly or wrongly that will does not exist right now. Supporters of gay rights like to sight the civil rights movement as an example I think that is often valid but you have to look at the entire movement. Civil rights did not move forward until we had a president a legislature and courts that was willing to move it forward. That happened because enough people were willing to vote for pro-civil right candidates. If the courts had tried to act alone they would have failed.
To get true change it requires not only all the branches of federal government to act together but for the states to participate as well. The federal government began the push for civil rights but it was not until the states became involved that we start seeing real change and the few hold states were forced to change eventually as well. Not all the states went along of course but the Jim Crow states were in the minority. How many states have passed legislation allowing same sex marriage?
Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional
04/08/2010 10:40:50 PM
- 1363 Views
Good news, but as the article says, it'll go all the way to the SC.
04/08/2010 10:55:58 PM
- 713 Views
So then is that how we do it?
04/08/2010 11:01:19 PM
- 839 Views
Of course.
04/08/2010 11:04:59 PM
- 745 Views
His point was
04/08/2010 11:40:14 PM
- 893 Views
Yeah but: What Ghavrel said below *NM*
05/08/2010 08:01:02 AM
- 432 Views
And again...
05/08/2010 06:08:56 PM
- 592 Views
To quote my property professor: "Can I make you think like a Californian?"
05/08/2010 06:39:48 PM
- 664 Views
I'm not the one who came up with the referendum system, you do realize.
04/08/2010 11:11:13 PM
- 735 Views
The referendum system, in my opinion, has been a failure, especially in CA.
04/08/2010 11:46:21 PM
- 819 Views
democracy has been a failure in CA.
05/08/2010 02:42:21 PM
- 604 Views
No. It just shows the problems of a crazy electorate.
05/08/2010 03:29:21 PM
- 721 Views
we vote fro way to much crap in general
05/08/2010 02:41:19 PM
- 665 Views
Yes, you still have to abide by the Constitution, even if a lot of people don't like it. *NM*
05/08/2010 12:07:44 AM
- 385 Views
Amend the Constitution to alter the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't like it. *NM*
05/08/2010 01:09:51 AM
- 445 Views
just a devil's advocate position here, but....
05/08/2010 04:23:43 AM
- 743 Views
Marriage is either an economic status regulated by law or a religious institution.
05/08/2010 05:13:17 AM
- 777 Views
There are certain things that should not be decided by a vote...
05/08/2010 02:02:45 AM
- 730 Views
I do agree with you on that. Hell yes, and on a subject like this in particular.
05/08/2010 02:17:24 AM
- 786 Views
Re: I do agree with you on that. Hell yes, and on a subject like this in particular.
05/08/2010 10:46:54 AM
- 778 Views
I understand it.
05/08/2010 03:06:40 PM
- 761 Views
I know you don't support proposition 8
05/08/2010 03:29:34 PM
- 748 Views
05/08/2010 03:34:01 PM
- 786 Views
But that is just simplistic and silly to complain about when it is a long standing possibility
05/08/2010 03:46:59 PM
- 668 Views
Oh, ees it?
05/08/2010 04:07:39 PM
- 806 Views
Well they knew the rules before they started the whole thing
05/08/2010 04:12:33 PM
- 645 Views
Why would you complain if you won?
05/08/2010 04:15:20 PM
- 736 Views
You could recognise that you won by the system working in a way you don't like?
05/08/2010 04:23:58 PM
- 617 Views
I'm sure that happens, in general.
06/08/2010 02:43:18 PM
- 603 Views
It seems to happen a lot nowadays
06/08/2010 03:06:33 PM
- 636 Views
It's so weird that you feel differently - there is only room for one opinion here!
06/08/2010 03:41:52 PM
- 563 Views
instead it should be decided by judges who answer to no one? *NM*
05/08/2010 07:12:59 AM
- 389 Views
The same judges who upheld our private right to bear arms.
05/08/2010 02:09:07 PM
- 765 Views
not when judges stop using the Constitution
05/08/2010 02:30:51 PM
- 740 Views
Sexual preference is not the right being protected.
05/08/2010 03:22:04 PM
- 809 Views
I know that the 14th amendment is routinely used in ways it was never intended.
05/08/2010 05:25:07 PM
- 719 Views
I realize that, but it is ultimately a good thing.
05/08/2010 05:31:19 PM
- 791 Views
let's take away the citizenship of all black people if that's the way you think
05/08/2010 09:06:23 PM
- 647 Views
Come now lets not be stupid
06/08/2010 05:31:18 PM
- 614 Views
sorry but your statement was completely ignorant.
06/08/2010 07:27:09 PM
- 733 Views
I will talk as soon as you stop spouting stupid rhetoric and say something relevant
06/08/2010 07:54:09 PM
- 697 Views
Let's just be clear about which amendment is which.
05/08/2010 11:50:57 PM
- 613 Views
but that still ignores intent and expands the law in ways not intnented when it created
06/08/2010 04:53:43 AM
- 673 Views
Yes, no, no, and no.
06/08/2010 05:29:09 AM
- 707 Views
there are serious flaws in your thinking here
06/08/2010 06:18:13 PM
- 788 Views
Your assertions continue to lack support.
06/08/2010 07:23:17 PM
- 814 Views
not all you just refuse to see things you disagree with
06/08/2010 08:36:32 PM
- 782 Views
...said the pot to the kettle
06/08/2010 09:17:28 PM
- 851 Views
yes but a shiny stainless steel pot
09/08/2010 11:21:33 PM
- 897 Views
You continue to be wrong about history and the role of courts.
10/08/2010 01:05:39 AM
- 1243 Views
If he's wrong, a lot of law scholars and Supreme Court Justices are wrong.
10/08/2010 01:44:05 AM
- 700 Views
Brown vs. Board of Education, 'nuff said. *NM*
10/08/2010 04:32:37 AM
- 384 Views
Actually, that only proves his point, if I understand correctly. *NM*
10/08/2010 11:11:19 AM
- 412 Views
part oif the problem appears to be you completely missing the point
10/08/2010 01:23:19 PM
- 912 Views
There's a simple way to determine the degree to which that opinion is objective or subjective...
06/08/2010 09:32:21 PM
- 647 Views
Since when is marriage a right? *NM*
05/08/2010 04:11:16 PM
- 374 Views
it may not be a "right"...
05/08/2010 04:22:44 PM
- 648 Views
It's a benefit that is being extended selectively to one set of the populace.
05/08/2010 04:52:52 PM
- 732 Views
Hey, I'm single....
05/08/2010 05:05:41 PM
- 644 Views
That's a specious argument and you know it.
05/08/2010 05:13:17 PM
- 717 Views
A homosexual has every opportunity as well.....
05/08/2010 05:23:56 PM
- 663 Views
Oh quit the bullshit already.
05/08/2010 05:29:15 PM
- 864 Views
Sorry, but what a nonsense.
05/08/2010 09:27:17 PM
- 632 Views
hey that's it, jens! you solved the WHOLE PROBLEM!!!
05/08/2010 11:24:29 PM
- 766 Views
ON TO WORLD HUNGER!
06/08/2010 07:59:51 AM
- 659 Views
LET THEM HAVE CAEK. *NM*
06/08/2010 02:29:56 PM
- 355 Views
Are you sure it's wise to feed people on a lie? *NM*
06/08/2010 02:34:26 PM
- 446 Views
People are fed lies all the time
06/08/2010 09:30:37 PM
- 641 Views
Quite so, but I don't think it's commonly a mainstay of their diet *NM*
06/08/2010 09:50:33 PM
- 384 Views
It is the only thing which is abundant enough for everyone to have some... *NM*
06/08/2010 10:01:44 PM
- 625 Views
I invite you to read the judge's conclusions, linked again inside.
05/08/2010 11:43:44 PM
- 750 Views
Since 1948
06/08/2010 04:01:02 AM
- 854 Views
gah. can. only. see. typo. *NM*
06/08/2010 03:43:21 PM
- 344 Views
I don't see any typo... *NM*
06/08/2010 04:07:18 PM
- 402 Views
I agree
05/08/2010 07:22:17 AM
- 722 Views
And Civil Rights lost the Democrats the South.
05/08/2010 03:44:56 PM
- 734 Views
but it was done by congress passing laws and the president signing those laws
05/08/2010 04:20:19 PM
- 683 Views
I was under the impression that the supreme court had a role in it
05/08/2010 04:31:51 PM
- 660 Views
but the court was not over turning the laws passed by congress
05/08/2010 05:11:06 PM
- 706 Views
No, like in this case, isn't it?
05/08/2010 05:24:19 PM
- 652 Views
I would say that is another case of judicial activism and shows the danger of the practice
05/08/2010 05:43:02 PM
- 619 Views
Hard to believe it's the same governor who said "Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." *NM*
04/08/2010 11:05:45 PM
- 458 Views
Link to the full court order inside:
04/08/2010 11:43:29 PM
- 844 Views
The judge quoting Scalia in favour of gay marriage is fairly amusing.
04/08/2010 11:50:47 PM
- 722 Views
What page was that on?
05/08/2010 11:25:49 AM
- 639 Views
Nah, it was way above page 109, in the findings of fact somewhere.
05/08/2010 12:37:48 PM
- 743 Views
Oh, that is brilliant.
05/08/2010 01:12:21 PM
- 647 Views
Pretty much.
05/08/2010 01:44:22 PM
- 774 Views
I've always wondered what basis there is for banning necrophilia if "it's disgusting" is invalid.
05/08/2010 01:51:19 PM
- 722 Views
because you cannot give consent when you are dead?
05/08/2010 03:04:46 PM
- 710 Views
what if you give consent while you are still alive?
05/08/2010 03:21:59 PM
- 811 Views
Is it then illegal?
05/08/2010 03:23:46 PM
- 729 Views
given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence
05/08/2010 03:33:11 PM
- 782 Views
Re: given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence
05/08/2010 03:34:57 PM
- 825 Views
I would think it would be illegal even then
05/08/2010 03:34:31 PM
- 743 Views
Wikipedia to the rescue!
05/08/2010 04:20:15 PM
- 869 Views
you would hope the other states would cover it under improper treatmentof human remains
05/08/2010 07:38:59 PM
- 689 Views
A dead body is just an object, not a person with rights.
05/08/2010 03:27:08 PM
- 731 Views
Yes, but
06/08/2010 08:42:05 AM
- 684 Views
Absolutely not.
06/08/2010 03:21:14 PM
- 737 Views
not to mention necrophilia has a large potential to be hazardous to health.
06/08/2010 09:42:43 PM
- 784 Views
Irrelevant decision.....this was heading to SCOTUS from day 1 *NM*
05/08/2010 12:53:26 AM
- 413 Views