9th Circus Court to rule on Calif prop 8 - change fundamental definition of marriage

[OCA]

Like I said, so long as you're cool with the government having the last say in things, regardless of what the people want. I really don't see a point in having referendums and such if we are only going to let judges and politicians decide for us anyway. Bypass the voting system and send it directly to a handful of judges.

I guess thats what we should do when electing the POTUS, apparently FJ doesn't think the people know jackshit.

[OCA]

What part of you don't get to have a vote to tell someone they don't have the right to enjoy as much freedom as you do you not understand? I mean seriously.....

Sure we do, its called setting limits and boundaries.

Are you really retarded or just playing the part?

[fj1200]

Like I said, so long as you're cool with the government having the last say in things, regardless of what the people want. I really don't see a point in having referendums and such if we are only going to let judges and politicians decide for us anyway. Bypass the voting system and send it directly to a handful of judges.

The people can't restrict rights any more than the government can.

They represent the people of their districts and states, when they vote for such wickedness they are in fact voting against the wishes of their constituents whom they took an oath to represent.

Newsflash: Representatives are not required to vote according to their constituents wishes.

Yes 7.........only they have to overturn the will of the people to do it.

29-0 against when the people have a say.

According to the link I posted the people of the state of NY has not voted on the issue yet it passed the legislature and was signed by the governor; was the will of the people overturned?

Admit you are wrong.

Look up the definition of the word "represent".

By your logic Hank Johnson needs to ask me my view before he "represents" me in Congress. I assure you he does not nor does his voting pattern match my wishes.

Lets not deal in what ifs unless that is all you have.

I'm not dealing in "what ifs," I'm dealing in eventuality.

[fj1200]

I guess thats what we should do when electing the POTUS, apparently FJ doesn't think the people know jackshit.

40% of the voters in AL in 2000 do in fact know "jackshit."

[logroller]

They represent the people of their districts and states, when they vote for such wickedness they are in fact voting against the wishes of their constituents whom they took an oath to represent.

Here are two oaths, the first is for US senators, the second is California's loyalty oath. ...neither say anything about representing the constituents.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 20 MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS


SEC. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and
employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior
officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they
enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and
subscribe the following oath or affirmation:


'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter....'

And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be required as a
qualification for any public office or employment.


"Public officer and employee" includes every officer and employee
of the State, including the University of California, every county,
city, city and county, district, and authority, including any
department, division, bureau, board, commission, agency, or
instrumentality of any of the foregoing.

complete text here

Like many people, your opinion is based on false assumptions which don't follow the rule of law-- which is why we have separation of powers and a judicial branch which holds reason over passion to subvert descent into demagoguery.

[OCA]

Here are two oaths, the first is for US senators, the second is California's loyalty oath. ...neither say anything about representing the constituents.



complete text here

Like many people, your opinion is based on false assumptions which don't follow the rule of law-- which is why we have separation of powers and a judicial branch which holds reason over passion to subvert descent into demagoguery.

Wow, no wonder we are so fucked up as a country, the people are basically ignored.

[logroller]

Like I said, so long as you're cool with the government having the last say in things, regardless of what the people want. I really don't see a point in having referendums and such if we are only going to let judges and politicians decide for us anyway. Bypass the voting system and send it directly to a handful of judges.

*cough* florida recount*cough* That's my best revalerts impression.

Seriously, I understand your frustration; that somehow my vote can be undermined by the rule of law; conversely, as I'm a Cali resident, do you think my Republican vote is gonna matter in the potus election given the majority of voters vote Dem? Majority winner take all with California electorates; and, unlike gays getting married, the president has at least some impact on my life/liberty etc. So I see it that a majority rule is far more prevalent than whatever these 'activist' judges have opined. Pretty far from 'only', that's for sure!

[logroller]

Wow, no wonder we are so fucked up as a country, the people are basically ignored.

not during election years.

[jimnyc]

The people can't restrict rights any more than the government can.

That's not what I said. If you are going to give government and appeals courts the right to make decisions, decisions against the votes of the citizens, then don't be surprised when the government does the same on other issues. There is no point whatsoever on having referendums if the only thing that matters is what 3 judges ultimately say. Just have the issue written up and have the politicians bring it directly to the courts for a decision.

[jimnyc]

*cough* florida recount*cough* That's my best revalerts impression.

Seriously, I understand your frustration; that somehow my vote can be undermined by the rule of law; conversely, as I'm a Cali resident, do you think my Republican vote is gonna matter in the potus election given the majority of voters vote Dem? Majority winner take all with California electorates; and, unlike gays getting married, the president has at least some impact on my life/liberty etc. So I see it that a majority rule is far more prevalent than whatever these 'activist' judges have opined. Pretty far from 'only', that's for sure!

As to Florida, the voting system wasn't bypassed and sent directly to judges for a decision. It's not as if the vote itself was tossed aside and the judges made the decision. But in that line of thinking, with this current discussion, everyone should be fine with the government or the judges overruling the vote of the people, no? That is exactly what we're talking about here, the majority decision being tossed aside and judges deciding instead.

[logroller]

As to Florida, the voting system wasn't bypassed and sent directly to judges for a decision. It's not as if the vote itself was tossed aside and the judges made the decision. But in that line of thinking, with this current discussion, everyone should be fine with the government or the judges overruling the vote of the people, no? That is exactly what we're talking about here, the majority decision being tossed aside and judges deciding instead.

And by ordering the recount to end, they interfered with the voting process; which is fine with me because At a certain point I submit to the rule of law, and it depends on the severity of how much I will be grieved. Gays getting married doesn't harm me or my marriage. Bush getting elected has had a greater effect, good and bad, on my life than gays ever have.
Look I was here in Cali when prop 8 was going about and I can tell you it was nothing more than legal gay bashing ; and worse still, it was an attempt to codify sectarian morality. I just didn't like the precedent and I'm glad it was overturned.

[fj1200]

That's not what I said. If you are going to give government and appeals courts the right to make decisions, decisions against the votes of the citizens, then don't be surprised when the government does the same on other issues. There is no point whatsoever on having referendums if the only thing that matters is what 3 judges ultimately say. Just have the issue written up and have the politicians bring it directly to the courts for a decision.

I didn't say it was but that is the response. The people can vote directly on some issues, when they meet the requirements, but that doesn't mean they're not subject to review just like when the legislature passes a law. I prefer the system of the courts reviewing after the fact.

[fj1200]

Wow, no wonder we are so fucked up as a country, the people are basically ignored.

:cough: elections :cough:

[OCA]

not during election years.

Most truthful statement ever uttered at DP.

Funny thing is most of the people here are shepp and will fall right in line.

[OCA]

:cough: elections :cough:

The sheepherder is calling you.