|
|
Post by surefire on Aug 8, 2008 10:51:18 GMT -5
I don't feel it is the state's (of Fed's business) to legislate morals. But what about the will of the people? When put to a vote, and the people move in overwhelming majority in one direction, what right does a court have to come and overturn the decision of the voters? I don't disagree with you here. Judges have become more and more arrogant these days, and the will of the people is often ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 8, 2008 12:42:49 GMT -5
digger said: "The will of the people must be upheld at all costs, no matter how unpopular the subject. To allow a judge or group of judges to rule from the bench and distort the will of the people is un-American and should not be tolerated."
uh, digger, isn't that exactly what happened at the end of the 2000 election? Conservative were screaming "stop the recount!" (implying they didn't want a fair and accurate vote tally to find out who the true winner was). If I remember correctly the Supreme court took it upon themselves to stop the count and handed Bush a victory. And the next 8 years is history (almost).
|
|
|
|
Post by digger on Aug 8, 2008 16:00:42 GMT -5
digger said: "The will of the people must be upheld at all costs, no matter how unpopular the subject. To allow a judge or group of judges to rule from the bench and distort the will of the people is un-American and should not be tolerated." uh, digger, isn't that exactly what happened at the end of the 2000 election? Conservative were screaming "stop the recount!" (implying they didn't want a fair and accurate vote tally to find out who the true winner was). If I remember correctly the Supreme court took it upon themselves to stop the count and handed Bush a victory. And the next 8 years is history (almost). I'm not arguing for or against here saunterelle. I'm merely saying the the will of the people has to be upheld, if the people want Prop 8 to pass, it'll pass. If they don't, it won't. For better or worse the courts need to stay out of it. By the way, I never said the 2000 election was a shining example of Democracy in action. Don't put words in my mouth bub. |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Aug 8, 2008 16:03:02 GMT -5
A desperate grasp at the past.
The 2000 election conclusion had to go to SCOTUS because the Fla. Supremes kept changing the rules, in defiance of law, statute & code. The entire affair was the work of Algore's guys, as they kept sueing to change the rules.
This is long settled, but it points out something about you, I'm afraid.
The resentment & inability to "Move on.org" from past disappointments & setbacks,manifests itself in arguments designed to distract rather than discuss. The legitimacy of anything or anybody can be called into question in order to avoid dealing with an issue, or the world as it really is.
It is 2008. Be. Here. Now.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Aug 8, 2008 17:06:37 GMT -5
The recount was fresh on my mind after recently seeing the HBO movie "Recount." I was simply speaking to digger's post by pointing out that the court stepping in goes both ways. If you don't want to talk about the 2000 election that's fine, I don't blame you, but if you want a refresher see here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zS-EEAfJW4 digger, weren't most of the monumental changes in civil rights decided by the courts? Many decisions that were unpopular at the time regarding desegregation were enacted by the courts because it was the right thing to do. Allowing gay people the right to get married is also the right thing to do, even if you don't see it yet. It has to do with fairness and opportunity for all, values our country was founded upon. |
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Aug 9, 2008 9:47:27 GMT -5
Saunterelle seems to be a bit confused with history'
Brown vs Board of Education (1954) - On May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision regarding the case called Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, in which the plaintiffs charged that the education of black children in separate public schools from their white counterparts was unconstitutional.
The Court ordered segregation to be phased out over time, "with all deliberate speed".
10 years later, and segregation was still the norm.
It wasn't until the the "sit-ins and Freedom Rides of the early 60's and the 1963 "March on Washington" did congress and President Johnson begin to pass legislations and laws that the courts could uphold.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination in employment practices and public accommodations
Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights.
Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups.
Civil Rights Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing.
__________________
As for the US Supreme Court ruling on the 2000 election, their ruling was ordering the Florida Supreme Courts to review it's rulings when they starting changing state election laws after the election had already been held (legislating from the bench.)
______________________
Now, here it is, I'm looking a bit foolish arguing with this fool.
|
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on Aug 9, 2008 9:51:31 GMT -5
To conclude with 2000, Algore had one, & only one electoral difficulty in 20000, & it was not Florida.
It was his home state of Tennessee. He lost his home state.
I don't believe anyone has ever been elected POTUS w/o it.
Fla. was a desperate grasp as he slipped between the waves. Every single reputable recount had G.W. Bush winning Fla.
TV show or not.
Gore lost in every way. Get. Over. It.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Aug 9, 2008 9:59:25 GMT -5
Another point about Justices legislating from the bench.
Roe v Wade or Doe v Bolton;
[The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton.]
[The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her "health." The Court defined "health" broadly:
“ Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. ]
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has criticized the Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade for terminating a nascent democratic movement to liberalize abortion law. Likewise, legal affairs editor Jeffrey Rosen and Michael Kinsley say that a democratic movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights.
The California Supreme Couts ruling allowing same sex marriages, is a hollow victory for homosexuals.
The ruling does more to separate the two sides causing dissention and anger rather than bringing the diverse groups together "build a more durable consensus in support of civil rights."
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Aug 9, 2008 13:24:28 GMT -5
it seems to me that santurelle's true problem is his inabiltiy to understand the electoral college and acknowledge it's importance. you cannot compare the vote of californians against gay marriage to the election of US presidents regarding "will of the people" and popular votes. apples and oranges, my friend. and if you really want to learn more just respond to this post and i'll be sure and school ya.  |
|
mrbose
Senior Member
Posts: 898
|
Post by mrbose on Aug 9, 2008 15:36:45 GMT -5
Is no a yes or yes a no?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 9, 2008 16:02:21 GMT -5
A yes is a yes and a no is a no. Read title and text of the proposed legislation. This is one of my pet peeves - people who say "well, no means yes and yes means no" about a ballot measure. READ!!! |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 10, 2008 9:02:01 GMT -5
digger said: "The will of the people must be upheld at all costs, no matter how unpopular the subject. To allow a judge or group of judges to rule from the bench and distort the will of the people is un-American and should not be tolerated." uh, digger, isn't that exactly what happened at the end of the 2000 election? Conservative were screaming "stop the recount!" (implying they didn't want a fair and accurate vote tally to find out who the true winner was). If I remember correctly the Supreme court took it upon themselves to stop the count and handed Bush a victory. And the next 8 years is history (almost). You have, of course, glossed over some history there my fellow poster. Important history. History which includes the right of Florida to certify the election according to their state law. And the history of who went to court to stop that certification, a man named Al Gore. Bush did not ask for the Supreme Court to stop the election, the case was fast tracked to allow for Florida to certify the election after it had been held up in lower courts. And, if I recall, Gore lost nearly every decision along the way. Also, it was Al Gore who attempted to disenfranchise the voters who voted absentee and were in the military. He should have graciously accepted defeat. I think it would have made his appeal to the Democrat Party even greater. The decision was not legislation from the bench, as we often get in California, mostly with thanks to the ninth circuit court of appeals. Californians expressed their desire for Marriage to between a man and a woman. The court has ensured that the only way that will happen is if it is in our state constitution. So be it. |
|
