Proposition 8 Dies with a Whimper.

[AlabamaPaul]

You have an example of a case where the SCOTUS has not used the constitution to write the opinions of the court and come to their ruling?

If you are about to cite the prop 8 case, they did cite the constitution. Its pretty much the only thing they do.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf

How is this not upholding the constitution?

It's not that they don't use the Constitution to support their findings. It's the interpretation that is where the problem lies. Prop 8 is not a good example as it was nothing more than deciding their was a lack of standing. A better example would be PPACA where it was decided the individual mandate was actually a tax when if it were, the court should not have even heard the case as the tax was not yet in effect...

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Once again it has happened ONCE for the SCOTUS and then before they took their power.



Actually yes, they do. They are the final word on what that amendment means.

It doesn't matter what power they claim for themselves -- they are not above the law, they are not above the Constitution, they are not above impeachment, and if an amendment either radically alters their role or dissolves it entirely there's not a damn thing they can do about it.

 

[Northern Light]

The will of the people is easily tempered by the three branches of government. That's what it means to live in a Republic.

If prop 8 actually made sense it would have won. The will of the people can say that the flying spaghetti monster rules America but unless you can prove it in court, it won't matter. Jurisprudence won out here. If you follow the legal cases you'll see why it made sense from start to finish.

It's people who don't understand rule of law who will call this judicial activism. They won't ever get it. "Liberalism is taking over" and blah blah.

 

[chromium]

I agree except for the biolded part. The Constitutuion did not grant that power to the SCOTUS nor did the men who wrote the Constitution intend for them to have that power (as the man who actually did the writing attests). It was the SCOTUS who granted themselves that power and they have grown it through precedence.

I'm sure this view is not going to thrill many, but if the Constitution can't guarantee equality for all, it's not worth the parchment it's written on. I'd certainly rather have 'activist' judges protecting minorities than the mob.

 

[Dittohead not!]

You're wrong on that last, if the sign is prominently placed they can try to sue but won't recover. If they show a habit of doing such, it's turned over to the fraud division of the local police. That's reality.

Can you sue a store for injuries caused by a slip-and-fall accident in the store?

Nope. Nothing about putting up a sign saying, "enter at your own risk" or anything like that.