Banner by Bams

Go Back   Second Citizen MK II > The Islands: Off Topic & Other > Off Topic > News

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Judicial System - Over-ruling
Old 08-06-2010, 10:41 AM   #1
3Ring Binder
...

3Ring Binder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Rez Date: Feb 03, 2007
Posts: 1,757
Send a message via Yahoo to 3Ring Binder Send a message via Skype™ to 3Ring Binder
Awards Showcase
5k trainwreck 
Total Awards: 1
Default Judicial System - Over-ruling

Do you think it is right for the judicial system to over rule the will of the people in cases such as the Arizona immigration law and Prop 8 in California?
3Ring Binder is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2010, 10:47 AM   #2
Arilynn
Has no title

Arilynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,804
My Mood:
Default

Arilynn is offline   Reply With Quote
15 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)
2 users have offered hugs:

Old 08-06-2010, 10:51 AM   #3
Govi
Ça va chier.

Govi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Rez Date: Mar 06, 2004
Location: Left coast
Posts: 20,631
My Mood:
Awards Showcase
28th 5k trainwreck 
Total Awards: 2
Default

As so eloquently pointed out by Arilynn, that's one of the purposes of the judicial system: to make the lawmakers follow their own rules. If you sign into the union, you have to abide by its rules, you don't get to pick and choose.
__________________
Govi is offline   Reply With Quote
2 users say thanks:
8 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)

Old 08-06-2010, 11:35 AM   #4
JohnnyVann
Rocky Mountain Hi! :wave:

JohnnyVann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 19,570
My Mood:
Awards Showcase
28th 
Total Awards: 1
Default

Constitution trumps public opinion. For the most part laws are passed by the will of the people but there are some things that even the mob can't over rule.
__________________
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well"
JohnnyVann is offline   Reply With Quote
6 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)

Re: Judicial System - Over-ruling
Old 08-06-2010, 11:46 AM   #5
Jorus
Bee Bully

Jorus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,354
My Mood:
Default Re: Judicial System - Over-ruling

May as well toss desegregation onto that pile as well. That was judges going against the will of the majority too.
__________________
On a dark and stormy Darkmere Night, the following snippet of conversation happened....

"[22:15] Tracer Graves: problem is, i can manage to play a girl pretty well"

"[22:15] Kristian Ming: you don't need to play a girl very well to escort in sl"
Jorus is offline   Reply With Quote
2 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)

Old 08-06-2010, 11:48 AM   #6
Charlemagne Allen
Vicious Asshole Owl-thing

Charlemagne Allen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Rez Date: Feb 18, 2007
Location: United States of America
Posts: 6,223
My Mood:
Awards Showcase
5k trainwreck 
Total Awards: 1
Default

Does the "tyranny of the majority" mean anything to you?

Quote:
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson

All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson
__________________
"I'm betting that you have a photo of a Tantric clusterbomb..."

"I always notice. I just don't care."- Gabe Lippman

"With squirting Batman dicks and god knows what all!"- Coconut Koala

"I don't actually have any desire to fuck sushi."- Io Zeno

Mein Foto:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/charlemagneallen/

Charlemagne Allen is offline   Reply With Quote
5 users say thanks:
4 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)

Old 08-06-2010, 12:10 PM   #7
Trout
Has the moves like Jagger

Trout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,691
My Mood:
Awards Showcase
28th 
Total Awards: 1
Default

yes
Trout is offline   Reply With Quote
One user says 'MMmmm. Pie':
4 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)

Old 08-06-2010, 12:11 PM   #8
Asher Bertrand
Exercising demons

Asher Bertrand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,483
Awards Showcase
28th 5k trainwreck 
Total Awards: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Ring Binder View Post
Do you think it is right for the judicial system to over rule the will of the people in cases such as the Arizona immigration law and Prop 8 in California?
State laws cannot override the US Constitution, no how matter many people might want them to.
__________________
I was right all along and Ray Bradbury, who misnamed his book, and Asher are both DUMB ASSES.
Asher Bertrand is offline   Reply With Quote
8 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)

Old 08-06-2010, 12:42 PM   #9
Roxie
For Rent

Roxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Western Sky!
Posts: 3,294
My Mood:
Default

That is the best example I have ever seen to describe the old adage

"A picture is worth a thousand words"


Majority rule, does not mean the majority is always right.
__________________
you should be ashamed of yourself... here you are, at you are age, with a full grown mustache, and you are not a lick smarter than a toddler imitating an adult---Mulch

Are people born wicked or do they have wickedness thrust upon them? -- Galinda The Good.

"I don't have low self esteem, I have low esteem for others"--Daria Morgendorffer
Roxie is offline   Reply With Quote
7 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)

Old 08-06-2010, 12:42 PM   #10
Joy Honey
damnable hitch, meanie

Joy Honey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,693
My Mood:
Send a message via Yahoo to Joy Honey
Awards Showcase
28th 5k trainwreck 
Total Awards: 2
Default

I think it's right for laws that promote discrimination against anyone to be overturned.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trout View Post
It's just words! It's not magic unicorn poop smeared on the tarot cards by a gypsy soothsayer in a voodoo trance.

"Listen, cop, I'm on the verge of disliking you."

One of the hardest things to believe is the abysmal depth of human stupidity. - Robert A. Heinlein
Joy Honey is offline   Reply With Quote
The following user says thanks:
6 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)

Old 08-06-2010, 02:21 PM   #11
Joy Honey
damnable hitch, meanie

Joy Honey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,693
My Mood:
Send a message via Yahoo to Joy Honey
Awards Showcase
28th 5k trainwreck 
Total Awards: 2
Default

Lat night, while I was flipping through the channels I came across this little gem:


I just LOVE the background choice for the woman who agrees with O'Reilly. "Fair and balanced" lulz
Joy Honey is offline   Reply With Quote
This user laughed so hard that they peed a little:
This user agrees. But then, who wouldn't, right?

Old 08-06-2010, 02:48 PM   #12
Jen
Panentheistic Harridan

Jen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Kansas
Posts: 15,548
My Mood:
Awards Showcase
28th 5k trainwreck 
Total Awards: 2
Default

O'Reilly keeps saying "7 million Californians" ... The total population of CA is officially estimated to be 38,292,687

Fucking assholes.
__________________
"...My body isn't a temple so much as it's a littered-up roadside cross with fake flowers stuck to it." ~Oryx

"...he may know what he actually meant, but we certainly cannot. It's like some biblical quote pulled at random from Revelations and used to support Jesus wielding Colt 45s and riding a tyrannosaurus rex at the Final Battle, only much shorter and bilingual. Maybe." ~Govi
Jen is offline   Reply With Quote
This user agrees. But then, who wouldn't, right?

Old 08-06-2010, 02:50 PM   #13
Coyote
Unregistered's Worst Enemy

Coyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 932
Default

Ari won. Thread's over.
Coyote is offline   Reply With Quote
This user laughed so hard that they peed a little:
8 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)
The following user offers hugs:

Old 08-06-2010, 02:56 PM   #14
GreenLantern Excelsior
A Lantern's Lantern

GreenLantern Excelsior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sector 647 (Phoenix)
Posts: 2,339
My Mood:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3Ring Binder View Post
Do you think it is right for the judicial system to over rule the will of the people in cases such as the Arizona immigration law and Prop 8 in California?
Not in those two cases. I do believe the courts are useful in overturning obviously unconstitutional laws, like for example if one state made a law bringing back slavery. I think that in the two examples above, both judges ruled on the basis of their personal opinions and not on the basis of constitutional issues.

I heard a great radio interview last night with a guy from California who was describing their system of lawmaking. He said that it is so absurdly easy to place an issue on the ballot that they have real trouble at the polls trying to wade through all the different ballot measures. Some of the issues are so wacky that they are obviously wrong, but they have to be voted on, and if enacted, there has to be a way to get them removed. For that reason, there are squads of lawyers waiting to spring into action at the end of every election so they can file lawsuits and go to court. Some of the voters are starting to wonder why it's even worth their time to vote, since it seems that judges can invalidate any vote at any time. In the case of Proposition 8, one activist judge invalidated the votes of 7 million people. The background behind that was that the Prop 8 supporters didn't have very good lawyers for this case, so the opposition rolled over them very easily. The litigation teams will be more evenly matched for the next appeal. In the case of SB 1070, one activist judge temporarily invalidated portions of the law that had overwhelming support, greater than 70% of Arizonans. In both cases, there is way too much power in the hands of a single individual. It's a good thing there's an appeals process to overrule these folks.
__________________
"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
US DEBT CLOCK
GreenLantern Excelsior is offline   Reply With Quote
3 users laughed. The question is: Are they laughing with you, or at you?:
3 users really think you should go fuck yourself with a rusty screwdriver.:
4 users disagree:

Old 08-06-2010, 03:00 PM   #15
Richard Waveington
Blast it with piss

Richard Waveington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,479
My Mood:
Default

As Jen pointed out, 7 million people in a state of 38 million. they were the activists.
__________________
Quote:
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.
-Anatole France
Sporting Dresden
Richard Waveington is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2010, 03:01 PM   #16
Jen
Panentheistic Harridan

Jen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Kansas
Posts: 15,548
My Mood:
Awards Showcase
28th 5k trainwreck 
Total Awards: 2
Default

Please stop saying "activist" judge. All judges are by default activists on some level, that word is only put into discussions when somebody wants to point and make nasty noises.

Re. O'Reilly et al's "7 million people", over and over and over again [the meme is being sown]:

There are more than 38 million citizens in California. 38 million - 7 million = 31 million. So there are 31 million people in California who did NOT vote for Proposition 8.

Last time I looked, 31 was bigger than 7. By more than four times.
Jen is offline   Reply With Quote
2 users say thanks:
7 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)

Old 08-06-2010, 03:19 PM   #17
Coyote
Unregistered's Worst Enemy

Coyote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 932
Default

Math, like spelling...
Coyote is offline   Reply With Quote
3 users laughed. The question is: Are they laughing with you, or at you?:

Old 08-06-2010, 03:20 PM   #18
Asher Bertrand
Exercising demons

Asher Bertrand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,483
Awards Showcase
28th 5k trainwreck 
Total Awards: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern Excelsior View Post
In both cases, there is way too much power in the hands of a single individual. It's a good thing there's an appeals process
I do agree with this.

Because when the judges decision is upheld at the USSC level, the ruling will apply nationally.
Asher Bertrand is offline   Reply With Quote
The following user says thanks:
This user agrees. But then, who wouldn't, right?

Old 08-06-2010, 03:20 PM   #19
Tracer Graves
Skype Mafia

Tracer Graves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,011
My Mood:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jen View Post
Please stop saying "activist" judge. All judges are by default activists on some level, that word is only put into discussions when somebody wants to point and make nasty noises.

Re. O'Reilly et al's "7 million people", over and over and over again [the meme is being sown]:

There are more than 38 million citizens in California. 38 million - 7 million = 31 million. So there are 31 million people in California who did NOT vote for Proposition 8.

Last time I looked, 31 was bigger than 7. By more than four times.
GLE seems to forget that prop 8 simply struck down a previously held right. Also the fact that both, especially prop 8 involve discrimination. Additionally, we will likely hear appeals in both cases, which will proceed in a constitutional manner. All laws are subject to interpretation, and as long as that interpretation is done in the Constitutionally described manner, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

People can pass legislation that deprives groups from civil rights or puts them at a disadvantage all they want. But they shouldn't get up in arms when that legislation gets struck down on legal grounds. That is, in fact, how our constitutional legal system works after all. It is really just kind of silly that these supposed constitution waving tea party types seem to completely misunderstand the function of the judicial branch and end up opposing our constitution.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasted Engineer View Post
There are worms living in your anus...


SLurl: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Vista/195/68/35
Tracer Graves is offline   Reply With Quote
2 users say thanks:
This user agrees. But then, who wouldn't, right?

Old 08-06-2010, 03:21 PM   #20
Tracer Graves
Skype Mafia

Tracer Graves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,011
My Mood:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern Excelsior View Post
Not in those two cases. I do believe the courts are useful in overturning obviously unconstitutional laws, like for example if one state made a law bringing back slavery. I think that in the two examples above, both judges ruled on the basis of their personal opinions and not on the basis of constitutional issues.

I heard a great radio interview last night with a guy from California who was describing their system of lawmaking. He said that it is so absurdly easy to place an issue on the ballot that they have real trouble at the polls trying to wade through all the different ballot measures. Some of the issues are so wacky that they are obviously wrong, but they have to be voted on, and if enacted, there has to be a way to get them removed. For that reason, there are squads of lawyers waiting to spring into action at the end of every election so they can file lawsuits and go to court. Some of the voters are starting to wonder why it's even worth their time to vote, since it seems that judges can invalidate any vote at any time. In the case of Proposition 8, one activist judge invalidated the votes of 7 million people. The background behind that was that the Prop 8 supporters didn't have very good lawyers for this case, so the opposition rolled over them very easily. The litigation teams will be more evenly matched for the next appeal. In the case of SB 1070, one activist judge temporarily invalidated portions of the law that had overwhelming support, greater than 70% of Arizonans. In both cases, there is way too much power in the hands of a single individual. It's a good thing there's an appeals process to overrule these folks.
ZOMG!!!1! People filing lawsuits in our Constitutionally created legal system!!!!

Teh horrorz!
Tracer Graves is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2010, 03:21 PM   #21
GreenLantern Excelsior
A Lantern's Lantern

GreenLantern Excelsior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sector 647 (Phoenix)
Posts: 2,339
My Mood:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jen View Post
Please stop saying "activist" judge. All judges are by default activists on some level, that word is only put into discussions when somebody wants to point and make nasty noises.
From what I've heard, the Prop 8 ruling contained a boatload of personal opinion, much more than a sober and serious judge would write. The term is accurate in that case, maybe not so much in the Arizona case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jen View Post
Re. O'Reilly et al's "7 million people", over and over and over again [the meme is being sown]:

There are more than 38 million citizens in California. 38 million - 7 million = 31 million. So there are 31 million people in California who did NOT vote for Proposition 8.

Last time I looked, 31 was bigger than 7. By more than four times.
Do you think all 38 million Californians showed up at the polls? Apparently they didn't. If there are 38 million Californians, then 30,998,916 of them did in fact not vote for Prop 8. The problem is only 6,401,482 of them voted against it, so the 7,001,084 who voted for it prevailed.
Link
GreenLantern Excelsior is offline   Reply With Quote
This user suggests that you go fuck yourself with a rusty screwdriver:

Old 08-06-2010, 03:23 PM   #22
Asher Bertrand
Exercising demons

Asher Bertrand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,483
Awards Showcase
28th 5k trainwreck 
Total Awards: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern Excelsior View Post
From what I've heard, the Prop 8 ruling contained a boatload of personal opinion, much more than a sober and serious judge would write. The term is accurate in that case, maybe not so much in the Arizona case.
The bolded part is the telling part of your statement. And where have you heard these things? Do tell.
Asher Bertrand is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2010, 03:24 PM   #23
Tracer Graves
Skype Mafia

Tracer Graves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,011
My Mood:
Default

Hi, my name is GreenLantern Excelsior and I'm for the Constitution!!!

(when it suits me)
Tracer Graves is offline   Reply With Quote
4 users laughed. The question is: Are they laughing with you, or at you?:
This user agrees. But then, who wouldn't, right?

Old 08-06-2010, 03:26 PM   #24
Tracer Graves
Skype Mafia

Tracer Graves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,011
My Mood:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern Excelsior View Post
From what I've heard, the Prop 8 ruling contained a boatload of personal opinion, much more than a sober and serious judge would write. The term is accurate in that case, maybe not so much in the Arizona case.


Do you think all 38 million Californians showed up at the polls? Apparently they didn't. If there are 38 million Californians, then 30,998,916 of them did in fact not vote for Prop 8. The problem is only 6,401,482 of them voted against it, so the 7,001,084 who voted for it prevailed.
Link
That personal opinion is based on the defense's arguments of why the Gays shouldn't be allowed into a civil contract.

In regard to the poll numbers, there was an unprecedented theocratic campaign in California to deny another group of the right to marriage based on 'God's law'.
Tracer Graves is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2010, 03:28 PM   #25
Arilynn
Has no title

Arilynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,804
My Mood:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern Excelsior View Post
From what I've heard, the Prop 8 ruling contained a boatload of personal opinion, much more than a sober and serious judge would write. The term is accurate in that case, maybe not so much in the Arizona case.
From what you heard? It is a 136-page decision. If you want to legitimately criticize it, you should at least read it first: Perry v. Schwarzenneger
Arilynn is offline   Reply With Quote
One user says 'MMmmm. Pie':
This user agrees. But then, who wouldn't, right?

Old 08-06-2010, 03:33 PM   #26
Roxie
For Rent

Roxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Western Sky!
Posts: 3,294
My Mood:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern Excelsior View Post
From what I've heard, the Prop 8 ruling contained a boatload of personal opinion, much more than a sober and serious judge would write. The term is accurate in that case, maybe not so much in the Arizona case.
You are an amazing fellow. Last week you were a cop and this week a lawyer.
Roxie is offline   Reply With Quote
This user laughed so hard that they peed a little:

Old 08-06-2010, 03:40 PM   #27
Tracer Graves
Skype Mafia

Tracer Graves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,011
My Mood:
Default

I would also like to say that what constitutes a Right is better determined through a legal proceeding than through political campaigning around a ballot issue.
Tracer Graves is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2010, 03:43 PM   #28
Tracer Graves
Skype Mafia

Tracer Graves's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,011
My Mood:
Default

I also am personally of the opinion that our right to decide who we marry in this country should be just as legally protected as religion, speech and property. Anyone who feels otherwise really can't complain about government intervention, imo.
Tracer Graves is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 08-06-2010, 03:47 PM   #29
Roxie
For Rent

Roxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Western Sky!
Posts: 3,294
My Mood:
Default

The basis of any law should be "Show the harm"

As far as I am concerned, no one has shown me the real harm done by gays getting married.
They have shown me the real harm in letting mob rule decided that one segment of humans is less than equal than another.
Roxie is offline   Reply With Quote
2 users say thanks:
2 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)

Old 08-06-2010, 03:47 PM   #30
GreenLantern Excelsior
A Lantern's Lantern

GreenLantern Excelsior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sector 647 (Phoenix)
Posts: 2,339
My Mood:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer Graves View Post
GLE seems to forget that prop 8 simply struck down a previously held right. Also the fact that both, especially prop 8 involve discrimination. Additionally, we will likely hear appeals in both cases, which will proceed in a constitutional matter. All laws are subject to interpretation, and as long as that interpretation is done in the Constitutionally described manner, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.
There's no forgetfulness involved here. California voters voted into effect a law banning gay marriage. The court overturned it. California voters then voted to change the state constitution to ban gay marriage so the court couldn't touch it. The court overturned it again.

All laws discriminate against some group of people. Rapists are oppressed, bank robbers can't catch a break, and drunken drivers are unloved. I think a country's population has the right to decide what they want their society to look like. If some people are unable to do by law what other people are able to do, those who are prohibited are free to try to change things. For example, suppose I have a 12-year-old son who is big for his age, very intelligent, and very coordinated. I think he should be able to get a driver's license and drive a car, but my state's law prohibits that due to age discrimination. I can submit a ballot measure to require a special coordination and maturity test to let underage kids get their drivers licenses. Right now, in Arizona, I can't marry my sister if I want to. Is that discrimination too? I suppose it is. Should I get all upset and carry a protest sign at the state capitol? Probably not, because I have other ways to accomplish that goal if I want. I can get pretty much the same results in most cases just by shacking up with her and signing mutual powers of attorney and other legal documents. As far as I know, the only thing I can't do is file as "married filing jointly" on my federal income tax return. Arizona law discriminates against me if I want to take multiple spouses, too. That's probably not going to change, either. I'm just living in the wrong country if I want some of those things to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Bertrand View Post
The bolded part is the telling part of your statement. And where have you heard these things? Do tell.
I have an hour to listen to talk radio on the drive to and from work. There are some interesting topics discussed in the local area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer Graves View Post
I would also like to say that what constitutes a Right is better determined through a legal proceeding than through political campaigning around a ballot issue.
I disagree. Legal proceedings involve a very small number of people making decisions for everyone. You might not like the results so much if some judge decided that public nudity for senior citizens was an inalienable right.
GreenLantern Excelsior is offline   Reply With Quote
4 users laughed. The question is: Are they laughing with you, or at you?:
3 users really think you should go fuck yourself with a rusty screwdriver.:

Old 08-06-2010, 03:51 PM   #31
Trout
Has the moves like Jagger

Trout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,691
My Mood:
Awards Showcase
28th 
Total Awards: 1
Default

Actually, before everyone jumps down GLE's throat, I'd like to commend him for doing exactly what I've been giving him grief for failing to do in the past. He's posting his opinion. It may be from questionable sources, or it may be wrong in your eyes (it is wrong in mine), but he didn't come in here and post an article or a video and maybe a snide comment without bothering to actually come up with his own opinion. I appreciate that he manned up and posted what he thought in his own words.

I disagree - that's cool, though. People disagree.

First, I think the phrase "squads of lawyers" is misleading. Any major ballot issue is going to have significant backing and significant opposition. Lawyers are allowed to have opinions, too. They are going to pick one side or the other. When the measure passes, the opposition is bound to have attorneys ready to challenge it. It's not like squads of attorneys are roaming the streets waiting to attack 3Ring in Spanish looking for someone to sue. (sorry for the joke - I couldn't resist). If a ballot measure can't survive a constitutional challenge then it should be tossed out anyway, so it's no great loss.

As for there being an inordinate amount of personal opinion in the ruling, there is always, to some extent, some personal opinion in an appellate case. They are not like trial cases (although personal opinion weighs in there as well, sometimes). Appellate judges have to interpret the law and the Constitution and they often do it in a vacuum. They have to rely on their best judgment and without personal experience and opinions, you can't have judgment. I looked at the actual ruling. You can find it here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL. It's around 10 billion pages long, so I didn't read the whole thing. What I skimmed looked ok, but if there is something specific you want to point to that feels like it's out of line, I'd like to address that. I could easily have missed whatever it was that was bothering you.

GLE - at times I've felt, from your posts, that you don't care for the constitution or the judicial system when you feel it doesn't benefit you, but that everything is peachy-keen when you get what you want. You've talked about activist judges, and "liberal judges letting criminals out on technicalities". Am I correct in that assumption, or am I wrong? If I am correct, I feel like your view is very myopic and skewed. If I'm wrong, then I apologize.
Trout is offline   Reply With Quote
This user laughed so hard that they peed a little:
2 users say thanks:

Old 08-06-2010, 03:52 PM   #32
vivi Odets
the original

vivi Odets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: in my dreams
Posts: 607
My Mood:
Default

The idea that an openly gay judge should have recused himself from the case is absurd. Would not an openly straight judge have bias as well?



(Ms. Smetters made me all twitchy with her assorted facial expressions. Me thinks she was reacting to somebody's hand up her skirt )
__________________
s u g a r m o u s e
vivi Odets is offline   Reply With Quote
2 users laughed. The question is: Are they laughing with you, or at you?:
5 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)

Old 08-06-2010, 03:52 PM   #33
Richard Waveington
Blast it with piss

Richard Waveington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,479
My Mood:
Default

Gle: you wanting to fuck your sister has nothing to do with the debate at hand.
Richard Waveington is offline   Reply With Quote
This user laughed so hard that they peed a little:

Old 08-06-2010, 03:56 PM   #34
Susanne Pascale
Senior Member

Susanne Pascale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 663
My Mood:
Default

I'm curious GLE and I am not baiting you here. I really want to hear your opinion on this. I'm not one of the people who constantly attack you personally, although I disagree with you most of the time.

I would like to know if you have a problem with same sex couples having the same rights and benefits that hetero sexual couples do, including but limited to the rights of survivorship, the tax benefits, the ability to put a spouse on your health benefits package, the right of hospital visitation etc. If you do have a problem with this, please tell me why, in your opinion, same sex couples should not have the same rights and benefits that hetero sexual couples do.

Thanking you in advance for your reply.

Sooz
__________________
"One is not born a woman but one becomes one."
- Simone de Beauvior
Susanne Pascale is offline   Reply With Quote
3 users say thanks:
This user agrees. But then, who wouldn't, right?
The following user offers hugs:

Old 08-06-2010, 03:58 PM   #35
Jen
Panentheistic Harridan

Jen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Kansas
Posts: 15,548
My Mood:
Awards Showcase
28th 5k trainwreck 
Total Awards: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trout View Post
It's not like squads of attorneys are roaming the streets waiting to attack 3Ring in Spanish looking for someone to sue. (sorry for the joke - I couldn't resist).
[was laughing at joke- carry on]
Jen is offline   Reply With Quote
The following user says thanks:
This user agrees. But then, who wouldn't, right?

Old 08-06-2010, 04:03 PM   #36
Roxie
For Rent

Roxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Western Sky!
Posts: 3,294
My Mood:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern Excelsior View Post
All laws discriminate against some group of people. Rapists are oppressed, bank robbers can't catch a break, and drunken drivers are unloved. I think a country's population has the right to decide what they want their society to look like. If some people are unable to do by law what other people are able to do, those who are prohibited are free to try to change things. For example, suppose I have a 12-year-old son who is big for his age, very intelligent, and very coordinated. I think he should be able to get a driver's license and drive a car, but my state's law prohibits that due to age discrimination. I can submit a ballot measure to require a special coordination and maturity test to let underage kids get their drivers licenses. Right now, in Arizona, I can't marry my sister if I want to. Is that discrimination too? I suppose it is. Should I get all upset and carry a protest sign at the state capitol? Probably not, because I have other ways to accomplish that goal if I want. I can get pretty much the same results in most cases just by shacking up with her and signing mutual powers of attorney and other legal documents. As far as I know, the only thing I can't do is file as "married filing jointly" on my federal income tax return. Arizona law discriminates against me if I want to take multiple spouses, too. That's probably not going to change, either. I'm just living in the wrong country if I want some of those things to happen.


)

The flaw in your argument is that all those examples involve cases of where harm can be proven.
Prop 8 is based solely on the presumption that gays are less than equal to others and the idea of homosexuality may be offensive to others.
I might remind you that there is no place in the constitution that says "You have the right, not to be offended"
I don't care how many of your friends and neighbors that you gather to say other wise.
You can not get around that fact.
Roxie is offline   Reply With Quote
2 users say thanks:
This user agrees. But then, who wouldn't, right?

Old 08-06-2010, 04:12 PM   #37
Lum
YEEAAHHHH

Lum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,050
My Mood:
Awards Showcase
Lum's Golden Waders Award 
Total Awards: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern Excelsior View Post
From what I've heard, the Prop 8 ruling contained a boatload of personal opinion, much more than a sober and serious judge would write.
This would be as opposed to the plaintiffs, who literally said that if Prop 8 was struck down, civilization would end.

Literally.
Lum is offline   Reply With Quote
2 users say thanks:
2 users agreed. You should agree too, c'mon, you know you want to. (click it, click it now!)

Old 08-06-2010, 04:13 PM   #38
Jen
Panentheistic Harridan

Jen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Central Kansas
Posts: 15,548
My Mood:
Awards Showcase
28th 5k trainwreck 
Total Awards: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lum View Post
if Prop 8 was struck down, civilization would end
:looks at watch:

Well?
Jen is offline   Reply With Quote
3 users laughed. The question is: Are they laughing with you, or at you?:

Old 08-06-2010, 04:14 PM   #39
Lum
YEEAAHHHH

Lum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,050
My Mood:
Awards Showcase
Lum's Golden Waders Award 
Total Awards: 1
Default

Well, Kanye West DOES have a new album coming out.
Lum is offline   Reply With Quote
5 users laughed. The question is: Are they laughing with you, or at you?:

Old 08-06-2010, 04:15 PM   #40
Roxie
For Rent

Roxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Western Sky!
Posts: 3,294
My Mood:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jen View Post
:looks at watch:

Well?
Everyone join hands and sing "Its the end of the world as we know it"


Roxie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:05 PM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Second Life® and Linden Lab® are trademarks of Linden Research, Inc.
Second Citizen MK II Forums are not affiliated with or sponsored by Linden Research.
© 2009 - 2011 Second Citizen MKII [SC MKII]
| Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search | New Posts |