Active Users:457 Time:10/11/2024 08:29:41 PM
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules
Your assertions continue to lack support. Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 06/08/2010 07:23:17 PM
would it be legal for airlines to charge more for blacks?


It would not, but the illegality of this would not be based on the 14th Amendment, which is my point.

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.


Everyone reinterprets the Constitution all the time. Should the 2nd Amendment be used to justify allowing personal ownership of assault weapons, despite the fact that nothing remotely as powerful existed when it was created? Should the 1st Amendment be used to justify removing limits on corporate contributions to political campaigns by claiming that money is speech? Should "free exercise of religion" include freedom from religion as well?

The Constitution is a living document. I name interpretations with which I disagree and with which I agree, but the fact remains that this judge is far from an anomalous case in making one. In this specific case, both Due Process and Equal Protection are phrased very broadly and it's not at all a stretch to apply them.

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?


Currently, gay marriage is legal in 5 states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont) plus Washington, D.C. It has briefly been legal in Maine and California. New York, Rhode Island, and Maryland recognize same-sex marriages from other states but don't perform them.

The United States is supposed to have a principled democracy (democratic republic) guided by the Constitution. This means that our system should not be accurately described as "majority rule," but as "majority rule with minority rights." The rights and freedoms of minorities must be protected for our system of government to remain legitimate, and the judicial branch acts, as it is intended, as a check on the activities of the other branches when they threaten that legitimacy by acting unconstitutionally.

Unquantifiable musing about "big social changes" needing to be done "gradually" just doesn't make an impact when placed against the fundamental foundation of our nation's government.

Also, your continued assertion that the judge is trying to "change the law" to meet his "personal idea of justice" shows nothing more than that you still haven't read the ruling. If you can point to specific passages indicating the judge is relying on his personal opinion above an objective interpretation of the facts and evidence, do so. Otherwise, quit it with the unsubstantiated claims.
Reply to message
Judge rules California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional ironclad - 04/08/2010 10:40:50 PM 1362 Views
Thank God. *NM* Ghavrel - 04/08/2010 10:52:30 PM 380 Views
Amen. *NM* Dannymac - 05/08/2010 02:09:24 AM 436 Views
Good news, but as the article says, it'll go all the way to the SC. Legolas - 04/08/2010 10:55:58 PM 712 Views
So then is that how we do it? Jeordam - 04/08/2010 11:01:19 PM 836 Views
Of course. ironclad - 04/08/2010 11:04:59 PM 744 Views
His point was ßelals Girl - 04/08/2010 11:40:14 PM 892 Views
Yeah but: What Ghavrel said below *NM* ironclad - 05/08/2010 08:01:02 AM 431 Views
And again... ßelals Girl - 05/08/2010 06:08:56 PM 590 Views
To quote my property professor: "Can I make you think like a Californian?" Tom - 05/08/2010 06:39:48 PM 663 Views
well that is sort of the idea of how democracy works snoopcester - 04/08/2010 11:06:57 PM 725 Views
I'm not the one who came up with the referendum system, you do realize. Legolas - 04/08/2010 11:11:13 PM 734 Views
The referendum system, in my opinion, has been a failure, especially in CA. Dreaded Anomaly - 04/08/2010 11:46:21 PM 817 Views
democracy has been a failure in CA. random thoughts - 05/08/2010 02:42:21 PM 603 Views
No. It just shows the problems of a crazy electorate. Tom - 05/08/2010 03:29:21 PM 720 Views
I think you made my point *NM* random thoughts - 05/08/2010 03:35:00 PM 399 Views
About Californians being crazy, yes. *NM* Tom - 05/08/2010 04:53:32 PM 373 Views
we vote fro way to much crap in general random thoughts - 05/08/2010 02:41:19 PM 664 Views
Yeah, I agree. Legolas - 05/08/2010 04:11:34 PM 657 Views
my one recent dealing with our criminal justice random thoughts - 05/08/2010 04:25:30 PM 695 Views
Yes, you still have to abide by the Constitution, even if a lot of people don't like it. *NM* Ghavrel - 05/08/2010 12:07:44 AM 384 Views
Amend the Constitution to alter the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't like it. *NM* Tom - 05/08/2010 01:09:51 AM 444 Views
just a devil's advocate position here, but.... moondog - 05/08/2010 04:23:43 AM 741 Views
Marriage is either an economic status regulated by law or a religious institution. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:13:17 AM 775 Views
There are certain things that should not be decided by a vote... Dannymac - 05/08/2010 02:02:45 AM 729 Views
I do agree with you on that. Hell yes, and on a subject like this in particular. nossy - 05/08/2010 02:17:24 AM 785 Views
Re: I do agree with you on that. Hell yes, and on a subject like this in particular. snoopcester - 05/08/2010 10:46:54 AM 777 Views
I understand it. nossy - 05/08/2010 03:06:40 PM 759 Views
I know you don't support proposition 8 snoopcester - 05/08/2010 03:29:34 PM 747 Views
nossy - 05/08/2010 03:34:01 PM 785 Views
But that is just simplistic and silly to complain about when it is a long standing possibility snoopcester - 05/08/2010 03:46:59 PM 666 Views
Oh, ees it? nossy - 05/08/2010 04:07:39 PM 805 Views
Well they knew the rules before they started the whole thing snoopcester - 05/08/2010 04:12:33 PM 644 Views
Why would you complain if you won? nossy - 05/08/2010 04:15:20 PM 735 Views
You could recognise that you won by the system working in a way you don't like? snoopcester - 05/08/2010 04:23:58 PM 616 Views
I'm sure that happens, in general. nossy - 06/08/2010 02:43:18 PM 602 Views
It seems to happen a lot nowadays snoopcester - 06/08/2010 03:06:33 PM 635 Views
It's so weird that you feel differently - there is only room for one opinion here! nossy - 06/08/2010 03:41:52 PM 562 Views
There is only room for one opinion and mine is the right one snoopcester - 06/08/2010 03:49:16 PM 683 Views
instead it should be decided by judges who answer to no one? *NM* random thoughts - 05/08/2010 07:12:59 AM 387 Views
The same judges who upheld our private right to bear arms. Tom - 05/08/2010 02:09:07 PM 764 Views
not when judges stop using the Constitution random thoughts - 05/08/2010 02:30:51 PM 739 Views
Sexual preference is not the right being protected. Tom - 05/08/2010 03:22:04 PM 807 Views
I know that the 14th amendment is routinely used in ways it was never intended. random thoughts - 05/08/2010 05:25:07 PM 718 Views
I realize that, but it is ultimately a good thing. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:31:19 PM 790 Views
I am really on the fence a bit on the whole issue random thoughts - 05/08/2010 06:00:59 PM 733 Views
I generally agree with you. Tom - 05/08/2010 06:33:56 PM 750 Views
let's take away the citizenship of all black people if that's the way you think moondog - 05/08/2010 09:06:23 PM 646 Views
Come now lets not be stupid random thoughts - 06/08/2010 05:31:18 PM 613 Views
sorry but your statement was completely ignorant. moondog - 06/08/2010 07:27:09 PM 732 Views
I will talk as soon as you stop spouting stupid rhetoric and say something relevant random thoughts - 06/08/2010 07:54:09 PM 696 Views
bullshit. you will personally attack me no matter what i say. moondog - 07/08/2010 02:04:04 PM 744 Views
Let's just be clear about which amendment is which. Dreaded Anomaly - 05/08/2010 11:50:57 PM 611 Views
but that still ignores intent and expands the law in ways not intnented when it created random thoughts - 06/08/2010 04:53:43 AM 671 Views
Yes, no, no, and no. Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2010 05:29:09 AM 706 Views
there are serious flaws in your thinking here random thoughts - 06/08/2010 06:18:13 PM 786 Views
Your assertions continue to lack support. Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2010 07:23:17 PM 813 Views
not all you just refuse to see things you disagree with random thoughts - 06/08/2010 08:36:32 PM 781 Views
...said the pot to the kettle Dreaded Anomaly - 06/08/2010 09:17:28 PM 850 Views
yes but a shiny stainless steel pot random thoughts - 09/08/2010 11:21:33 PM 896 Views
You continue to be wrong about history and the role of courts. Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 01:05:39 AM 1240 Views
If he's wrong, a lot of law scholars and Supreme Court Justices are wrong. Legolas - 10/08/2010 01:44:05 AM 699 Views
Brown vs. Board of Education, 'nuff said. *NM* Dreaded Anomaly - 10/08/2010 04:32:37 AM 382 Views
Actually, that only proves his point, if I understand correctly. *NM* Legolas - 10/08/2010 11:11:19 AM 411 Views
part oif the problem appears to be you completely missing the point random thoughts - 10/08/2010 01:23:19 PM 911 Views
let my simplify my argument random thoughts - 10/08/2010 01:42:47 PM 616 Views
There's a simple way to determine the degree to which that opinion is objective or subjective... Legolas - 06/08/2010 09:32:21 PM 646 Views
Since when is marriage a right? *NM* Jeordam - 05/08/2010 04:11:16 PM 373 Views
it may not be a "right"... LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 04:22:44 PM 647 Views
This is where the debate comes into play.... Jeordam - 05/08/2010 05:04:08 PM 662 Views
How much would it change the debate if it was nurture, really? Legolas - 05/08/2010 09:48:22 PM 680 Views
except this is not merely a matter of changing society LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 11:18:48 PM 726 Views
1948. *NM* jh - 05/08/2010 04:50:30 PM 369 Views
It's a benefit that is being extended selectively to one set of the populace. Tom - 05/08/2010 04:52:52 PM 729 Views
Hey, I'm single.... Jeordam - 05/08/2010 05:05:41 PM 643 Views
That's a specious argument and you know it. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:13:17 PM 716 Views
A homosexual has every opportunity as well..... Jeordam - 05/08/2010 05:23:56 PM 662 Views
Oh quit the bullshit already. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:29:15 PM 863 Views
Slow your role... Jeordam - 05/08/2010 09:08:54 PM 769 Views
Your religious beliefs have 100% to do with your position. Tom - 05/08/2010 09:43:23 PM 811 Views
Sorry, but what a nonsense. ironclad - 05/08/2010 09:27:17 PM 630 Views
hey that's it, jens! you solved the WHOLE PROBLEM!!! LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 11:24:29 PM 765 Views
ON TO WORLD HUNGER! ironclad - 06/08/2010 07:59:51 AM 658 Views
LET THEM HAVE CAEK. *NM* jh - 06/08/2010 02:29:56 PM 354 Views
Are you sure it's wise to feed people on a lie? *NM* Floffe - 06/08/2010 02:34:26 PM 444 Views
People are fed lies all the time LadyLorraine - 06/08/2010 09:30:37 PM 639 Views
Quite so, but I don't think it's commonly a mainstay of their diet *NM* Floffe - 06/08/2010 09:50:33 PM 383 Views
It is the only thing which is abundant enough for everyone to have some... *NM* jh - 06/08/2010 10:01:44 PM 624 Views
I agree with you Sareitha Sedai - 05/08/2010 05:06:40 PM 697 Views
That's not valid. Tom - 05/08/2010 05:26:50 PM 708 Views
I invite you to read the judge's conclusions, linked again inside. Dreaded Anomaly - 05/08/2010 11:43:44 PM 748 Views
Since 1948 Napoleon62 - 06/08/2010 04:01:02 AM 852 Views
gah. can. only. see. typo. *NM* nossy - 06/08/2010 03:43:21 PM 343 Views
I don't see any typo... *NM* Legolas - 06/08/2010 04:07:18 PM 401 Views
Open the link. *NM* nossy - 06/08/2010 04:47:04 PM 490 Views
Oh, right. Yeah, that does kinda detract from things. *NM* Legolas - 06/08/2010 04:48:47 PM 379 Views
I agree random thoughts - 05/08/2010 07:22:17 AM 721 Views
And Civil Rights lost the Democrats the South. Dannymac - 05/08/2010 03:44:56 PM 733 Views
but it was done by congress passing laws and the president signing those laws random thoughts - 05/08/2010 04:20:19 PM 682 Views
uhm, what? LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 04:24:43 PM 670 Views
those were mostly rulings up holding laws not stiking them down random thoughts - 05/08/2010 05:05:15 PM 740 Views
I was under the impression that the supreme court had a role in it snoopcester - 05/08/2010 04:31:51 PM 659 Views
but the court was not over turning the laws passed by congress random thoughts - 05/08/2010 05:11:06 PM 705 Views
No, like in this case, isn't it? snoopcester - 05/08/2010 05:24:19 PM 651 Views
I would say that is another case of judicial activism and shows the danger of the practice random thoughts - 05/08/2010 05:43:02 PM 618 Views
Which one is? I imagine from different view points both are. snoopcester - 06/08/2010 10:34:11 AM 619 Views
The law wasn't constitutional. Dannymac - 07/08/2010 06:17:04 AM 656 Views
well it will take a higher court to decide that random thoughts - 09/08/2010 10:46:15 PM 686 Views
Hard to believe it's the same governor who said "Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman." *NM* TaskmasterJack - 04/08/2010 11:05:45 PM 457 Views
Or "Iff it bleeds we can kill itt!" *NM* ironclad - 04/08/2010 11:14:45 PM 432 Views
Another step in the right direction. *NM* snoopcester - 04/08/2010 11:08:15 PM 451 Views
Link to the full court order inside: Dreaded Anomaly - 04/08/2010 11:43:29 PM 843 Views
The judge quoting Scalia in favour of gay marriage is fairly amusing. Legolas - 04/08/2010 11:50:47 PM 721 Views
What page was that on? Tim - 05/08/2010 11:25:49 AM 638 Views
Nah, it was way above page 109, in the findings of fact somewhere. Legolas - 05/08/2010 12:37:48 PM 742 Views
Oh, that is brilliant. Tim - 05/08/2010 01:12:21 PM 646 Views
Pretty much. Legolas - 05/08/2010 01:44:22 PM 773 Views
I've always wondered what basis there is for banning necrophilia if "it's disgusting" is invalid. Tim - 05/08/2010 01:51:19 PM 720 Views
because you cannot give consent when you are dead? Camilla - 05/08/2010 03:04:46 PM 709 Views
what if you give consent while you are still alive? random thoughts - 05/08/2010 03:21:59 PM 810 Views
Is it then illegal? Camilla - 05/08/2010 03:23:46 PM 728 Views
given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence snoopcester - 05/08/2010 03:33:11 PM 781 Views
Re: given I imagine the pro-necrophilia lobby isn't strong in numbers or influence Camilla - 05/08/2010 03:34:57 PM 824 Views
I would think it would be illegal even then random thoughts - 05/08/2010 03:34:31 PM 742 Views
Wikipedia to the rescue! Legolas - 05/08/2010 04:20:15 PM 867 Views
you would hope the other states would cover it under improper treatmentof human remains random thoughts - 05/08/2010 07:38:59 PM 687 Views
A dead body is just an object, not a person with rights. Tom - 05/08/2010 03:27:08 PM 730 Views
Yes, but Camilla - 06/08/2010 08:42:05 AM 683 Views
Absolutely not. Tom - 06/08/2010 03:21:14 PM 736 Views
not to mention necrophilia has a large potential to be hazardous to health. LadyLorraine - 06/08/2010 09:42:43 PM 782 Views
That was a very well written judgement. Tim - 05/08/2010 11:24:38 AM 736 Views
Tom - 05/08/2010 12:10:02 AM 731 Views
Totally agree. Rebekah - 05/08/2010 01:01:42 PM 775 Views
+1 *NM* LadyLorraine - 05/08/2010 03:42:08 PM 397 Views
Irrelevant decision.....this was heading to SCOTUS from day 1 *NM* trzaska2000 - 05/08/2010 12:53:26 AM 412 Views
Back to Messageboard Post New Thread Search Help Stats Rules

Reply to Message

Block Quote Paragraph Quote
Formatting
Smiley Codes