Proposition 8 Dies with a Whimper.

[shrubnose]

California's Supreme Court refused to revive Proposition8.

Learn more here: Proposition 8 Dies With a Whimper - Taegan Goddard's Wonk Wire



My guess is that we have heard the last of Proposition8.

Any thoughts?




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

 

[TiredOfLife]

California's Supreme Court refused to revive Proposition8.

Learn more here: Proposition 8 Dies With a Whimper - Taegan Goddard's Wonk Wire



My guess is that we have heard the last of Proposition8.

Any thoughts?


"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Well there's one POS bill that's finally dead. Thank god for small favors and I give one big middle finger to the Mormon "church".

 

[Gipper]

 

[clownboy]

So basically you're celebrating that the supreme court of a state decided not to honor the electoral will of the people. Yay. :roll:

Does this mean you'll all celebrate the next time this happens when it's an issue you voted for? Somehow I doubt it. We'll hear a different story then accompanied by groaning and complaining about the loss of democracy in America.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

So basically you're celebrating that the supreme court of a state decided not to honor the electoral will of the people. Yay. :roll:

Does this mean you'll all celebrate the next time this happens when it's an issue you voted for? Somehow I doubt it. We'll hear a different story then accompanied by groaning and complaining about the loss of democracy in America.

You've forgotten that we're also a republic. No amount of majority can vote away the rights of a minority.

Would you be saying the same thing if this were a bill that prevented african americans from voting or having guns? It would be the will of the people, right?

 

[Gipper]

You've forgotten that we're also a republic. No amount of majority can vote away the rights of a minority.

Would you be saying the same thing if this were a bill that prevented blacks from voting?

Judges don't legislate in a republic.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Judges don't legislate in a republic.

Sure it does. It strikes down laws that violate minority rights. If you were to make a law that african americans can't vote or have guns, they could strike that down just as easily.

Democracy doesn't mean the mob can do whatever the hell they want.

 

[clownboy]

You've forgotten that we're also a republic. No amount of majority can vote away the rights of a minority.

Would you be saying the same thing if this were a bill that prevented african americans from voting or having guns? It would be the will of the people, right?

Actually that's not true at all. The majority can indeed vote in a constitutional amendment defining those rights. The useless strawman of taking voting away from a certain racial class has long ago been dealt with.

 

[Gipper]

Sure it does. It strikes down laws that violate minority rights. If you were to make a law that african americans can't vote or have guns, they could strike that down just as easily.

Democracy doesn't mean the mob can do whatever the hell they want.

The main reason I disagree is because I never have (and never will) view marriage as a right. People can say it all they want, but it is not a right. It is a privilege.

Also, that's exactly what democracy means. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It's why Churchill stated that the biggest argument against it is a five minute conversation with your average voter.

When you allow judges to create policy, you're just eroding your freedoms away, piece by piece. You can whitewash it by saying that some things are "rights", but you're playing semantics with yourself while allowing the genie out of the bottle.

 

[Redress]

So basically you're celebrating that the supreme court of a state decided not to honor the electoral will of the people. Yay. :roll:

Does this mean you'll all celebrate the next time this happens when it's an issue you voted for? Somehow I doubt it. We'll hear a different story then accompanied by groaning and complaining about the loss of democracy in America.

Any time a supreme court overturns a law it is "deciding not to honor the electoral will of the people". The people of the state of California are still bound by the US constitution, and prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional in the initial ruling, and the Supreme Court ruled that the proponents did not have standing to appeal. Gosh darn rule of law...

 

[Fiddytree]

So basically you're celebrating that the supreme court of a state decided not to honor the electoral will of the people. Yay. :roll:

Does this mean you'll all celebrate the next time this happens when it's an issue you voted for? Somehow I doubt it. We'll hear a different story then accompanied by groaning and complaining about the loss of democracy in America.

It's a good thing to stamp out democracy where its vile fingers do not belong.

 

[clownboy]

It's a good thing to stamp out democracy where its vile fingers do not belong.

You should make that your sig. :mrgreen:

 

[clownboy]

Any time a supreme court overturns a law it is "deciding not to honor the electoral will of the people". The people of the state of California are still bound by the US constitution, and prop 8 was found to be unconstitutional in the initial ruling, and the Supreme Court ruled that the proponents did not have standing to appeal. Gosh darn rule of law...

Two different supreme courts. AND a reminder that we are no longer ruled by the will of the people expressed in federal and state constitution but by a small group of black robed Ayatollahs. There is no right to marriage in the federal constitution, it's not even mentuioned once, the SCOTUS had no standing to rule here in the first place.

 

[Fiddytree]

You should make that your sig. :mrgreen:

Quote myself? No way

 

[opendebate]

California's Supreme Court refused to revive Proposition8.

Learn more here: Proposition 8 Dies With a Whimper - Taegan Goddard's Wonk Wire



My guess is that we have heard the last of Proposition8.

Any thoughts?




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

:applaud:applaud:applaud:applaud:applaud:

 

[Redress]

Two different supreme courts. AND a reminder that we are no longer ruled by the will of the people expressed in federal and state constitution but by a small group of black robed Ayatollahs. There is no right to marriage in the federal constitution, it's not even mentuioned once, the SCOTUS had no standing to rule here in the first place.

You clearly have not read any of the rulings, nor are you remotely familiar with the relevant law. You might bone up on those before continuing to say silly ****. Over the top hyperbole when things do not go your way is not going to present your arguments in a good light.

 

[Dittohead not!]

California's Supreme Court refused to revive Proposition8.

Learn more here: Proposition 8 Dies With a Whimper - Taegan Goddard's Wonk Wire



My guess is that we have heard the last of Proposition8.

Any thoughts?




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

I think you're right.
RIP, Proposition 8. You have lots of company, but most of the dead propositions died from lack of votes.

 

[CalGun]

While I didn't care for prop 8 and voted against it, it bothers me greatly the will of the people is not followed in this nation.

California's Supreme Court refused to revive Proposition8.

Learn more here: Proposition 8 Dies With a Whimper - Taegan Goddard's Wonk Wire



My guess is that we have heard the last of Proposition8.

Any thoughts?




"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Actually that's not true at all. The majority can indeed vote in a constitutional amendment defining those rights. The useless strawman of taking voting away from a certain racial class has long ago been dealt with.

It's not a strawman, you want to take away rights/privileges from a class you deem inferior, while you enjoy those rights/privileges for yourself. Sorry, you do not get to do that.

The main reason I disagree is because I never have (and never will) view marriage as a right. People can say it all they want, but it is not a right. It is a privilege.

Also, that's exactly what democracy means. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. It's why Churchill stated that the biggest argument against it is a five minute conversation with your average voter.

When you allow judges to create policy, you're just eroding your freedoms away, piece by piece. You can whitewash it by saying that some things are "rights", but you're playing semantics with yourself while allowing the genie out of the bottle.

Right or privilege, it doesn't matter. It's something you (or the average man, considering you're a hopeless womanizer with no desire to marry) can readily enjoy while you deny it to a specific class.

There are limits to what the mob can demand. Do you disagree? Or is the will of the mob absolute?

 

[clownboy]

You clearly have not read any of the rulings, nor are you remotely familiar with the relevant law. You might bone up on those before continuing to say silly ****. Over the top hyperbole when things do not go your way is not going to present your arguments in a good light.

Heh, you know differently, neither of us are new here and we've read one another's posts. What I say is not hyperbole, but a conclusion based upon the evolution of the SCOTUS and it's place in America constitutionally and by custom. We have given up on democracy and republic and are now ruled by a few black robed lifetime appointees. Just how is this any different from the system that is rulled by Ayatollahs or a ruling religious council?

Show me where in our federal constitution marriage exists as a right.

 

[Gipper]

Right or privilege, it doesn't matter. It's something you (or the average man, considering you're a hopeless womanizer with no desire to marry) can readily enjoy while you deny it to a specific class.

There are limits to what the mob can demand. Do you disagree? Or is the will of the mob absolute?

Don't assume.

That aside, no "specific class" is being denied. That's like saying an enforcement of statutory rape is "denying a specific class". Privilege is privilege because not everyone is afforded it. You could make the same argument against progressive taxation by citing it being against a "specific class".

People can't just do anything they damn well please. Only hedonists would disagree.

 

[TiredOfLife]

People can't just do anything they damn well please. Only hedonists would disagree.

And the Libertarians here apparently.

 

[APACHERAT]

Sure it does. It strikes down laws that violate minority rights. If you were to make a law that african americans can't vote or have guns, they could strike that down just as easily.

Democracy doesn't mean the mob can do whatever the hell they want.

What in hell does a "republic" have to do with majorities or minorties ?

The Soviet Union was a republic, Nazi Germany was a republic, Communist China is a republic, the Peoples Repulik of California is a republic.

The SCOUS did not rule that Prop 8 was unconstitutional, they ruled that those before the court who were defending Prop. 8 had no right standing before the SCOUS defending Prop. 8. That only the California Attorney General was allowed to defend Prop. 8. That was the Supreme Court's ruling.

Why people were celebrating is beyond my thinking. The Supreme Court basically ruled that the Governor and Attorney General of California failed to uphold the oath of office they took and violated the state Constitution by flipping off the majority of the citizens in California and saying #### the laws of California and the will of the people, do as I say.

What next initiative that is on the ballot that the vast majority of citizens pass and is challenged and the Governor or Attorney General of California or any other state decides not to uphold his or hers oath of office and ignore that states constitution and refuse to defend a law that the majority voted in to law ?

Just another few more steps towards a totalitarian government.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Two different supreme courts. AND a reminder that we are no longer ruled by the will of the people expressed in federal and state constitution but by a small group of black robed Ayatollahs. There is no right to marriage in the federal constitution, it's not even mentuioned once, the SCOTUS had no standing to rule here in the first place.

Which is exactly what the SCOTUS ruled, specifically stating that no federal court had any say in this state matter. It was thus left, properly, to the highest state court in CA to decide, which it already had (and rejected it) in 2009. The people of CA will have to first clarify (or ammend) their state constitution to prevent these loony judges unequal interpretation of what equal protection actually means.

 

[Gipper]

And the Libertarians here apparently.

Yeah. Damn us libertarians for not wanting to legislate every f'n thing alive.