PDA

View Full Version : Federal Judge Overturns Prop 8 In California


Hunters Run
08-13-2010, 03:26 PM
http:///www.sfgate.com/

Search for Proposition 8. You'll find boatloads of articles for and against the ruling.

This one's going to the supreme court.

edit- My opinion is that this would set a bad precedent of a federal judge overturning a state voted proposition. Also that some people would do anything for media attention. I HEARD it was two straight guys that brought the case before Judge Walker.

mimartin
08-13-2010, 03:31 PM
This one's going to the supreme court.

I don't believe anyone in their right mind ever doubted that it would end up in the Supreme Court.

edit- My opinion is that this would set a bad precedent of a federal judge overturning a state voted proposition.
So let us take this logic a step further. Let us say you live in a largely Muslim section of a city, there is a public referendum to require every female in the community to wear Burqa when outside of their home. Since it was voted on and passed by the community, you would not feel that it violated individual rights and as such should not be challenged in court?

Or are you saying since you agreed with Proposition 8, you do not feel it should be challenged in court even though people feel it violates their rights?

Personally, I do not believe in the mob rule mentality. I also believe in the Constitution of the United States and have no problem with any law going before the highest court in the land to verify that it does not violate the Constitution.

Ping
08-13-2010, 05:39 PM
I personally do not have any problems with this, though they could have picked a better judge - an openly gay guy presiding over a case about gay rights.

I'll be a little surprised if it doesn't go up to the Supreme Court.

mimartin
08-13-2010, 05:51 PM
I personally do not have any problems with this, though they could have picked a better judge - an openly gay guy presiding over a case about gay rights.Why? Straight judges preside over cases involving straight rights every day. I donít believe the judges sexuality should be of any issue here and I am very surprised it has even been brought up in the media, useless of course it was brought up by one of the right wing radio or falsenews lyingheads.

JediAthos
08-13-2010, 05:55 PM
I'm sure the high court will hear the case. I don't have a problem with the judge's ruling whatsoever and frankly I hope the Supreme Court upholds it.

Tommycat
08-13-2010, 07:56 PM
Well this does come down to a case that SHOULD go to the supreme court. Prop 8 was unconstitutional in that it violated equal protection. I don't agree with prop 8 in the least. And because something is popular and voted on and even supported by a majority does not mean that it cannot be challenged in the court system.

Though I do believe that the judge should have recused himself in this case as being openly gay could have been seen as a conflict of interest. But it really doesn't matter ultimately. This one's going to the Supreme Court regardless.

Ping
08-13-2010, 08:12 PM
Why? Straight judges preside over cases involving straight rights every day. I donít believe the judges sexuality should be of any issue here and I am very surprised it has even been brought up in the media, useless of course it was brought up by one of the right wing radio or falsenews lyingheads.

Maybe I should have rephrased that better. I mean, of course a gay judge is going to say gay people should have rights. I'm just saying the message would have been more....powerful if it came from somebody who's straight.

Lord of Hunger
08-14-2010, 02:02 AM
Personally, I do not believe in the mob rule mentality. I also believe in the Constitution of the United States and have no problem with any law going before the highest court in the land to verify that it does not violate the Constitution.
1) A judicial dictatorship undermines American democracy just as much as mob rule.
2) How does this even relate to the Constitution? Marriage as a right is a concept that only existed recently because it has been invented. That does not mean it is wrong and I wholeheartedly support it personally, but the United States Constitution guarantees no such rights.
3) If this relates to the Constitution, then it should not be sent to the courts until AFTER it has been voted on in the appropriate legislative bodies. The job of the courts is to verify if legislation is Constitutional, not to dictate rights. Otherwise, civil liberties become pure politics.

Inyri
08-14-2010, 02:38 AM
2) How does this even relate to the Constitution? Marriage as a right is a concept that only existed recently because it has been invented. That does not mean it is wrong and I wholeheartedly support it personally, but the United States Constitution guarantees no such rights.You might want to have a quick read over the 14th amendment to the constitution.

Samuel Dravis
08-14-2010, 07:26 AM
1) A judicial dictatorship undermines American democracy just as much as mob rule.
2) How does this even relate to the Constitution? Marriage as a right is a concept that only existed recently because it has been invented. That does not mean it is wrong and I wholeheartedly support it personally, but the United States Constitution guarantees no such rights.
3) If this relates to the Constitution, then it should not be sent to the courts until AFTER it has been voted on in the appropriate legislative bodies. The job of the courts is to verify if legislation is Constitutional, not to dictate rights. Otherwise, civil liberties become pure politics.It isn't that getting married is a right along the lines of, e.g., the pursuit of happiness; it's that some people are allowed to do what others are not, purely on the basis of their sexual orientation. The "right to get married" in this case is the (explicitly Constitutionally protected) right to have equal status before the law with their peers. That marriage is involved is simply happenstance. And yes, the job of the courts IS to dictate rights in a negative fashion, by preventing the government from expanding its powers illegitimately.

Also, remember that the Constitution is an exhaustive list of the powers of the federal government, not a list of the rights of citizens. So, even if something is not mentioned explicitly as being a right, it still can be one now, or in the future when it becomes necessary (cf the ninth amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) ).

Tommycat
08-14-2010, 11:27 AM
2) How does this even relate to the Constitution? Marriage as a right is a concept that only existed recently because it has been invented. That does not mean it is wrong and I wholeheartedly support it personally, but the United States Constitution guarantees no such rights.


Incorrect. IF Marriage only meant joining two people for religious purposes, then Prop 8 violates the First Amendment. However there are a number of rights that follow with marriage. Rights which without being able to marry, are not honored under the law. There are a few members on this board who could answer the rights better than I, but off the top of my head, rights of survivorship, visitation rights, and of course being treated the same under the 14th amendment which guarantees the right of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.

That last one is pretty nebulous. But since insurance companies and corporations treat people differently when married as opposed to single couples, in order to receive certain benefits you must be married. For instance, my girlfriend gets great benefits from her job at the county. If we were married I would be able to be on her insurance. However since I am not "family" I have to stick with my crappy insurance that makes an HMO actually sound appealing.

Hunters Run
08-15-2010, 12:43 AM
My point is that while they may have a case this time that prop 8 is unconstitutional where would the line be? e.g. Later on a Judge may overturn a law on the grounds it will be unconstitutional while he is pushing a political agenda.

mimartin
08-15-2010, 01:03 AM
There isn’t a line. A judge should base his/her ruling on the merits of the case, not on political agendas. However, that isn’t always the case. Many rulings have been based on political agendas. One of the most noteworthy in recent years was Bush v. Gore.

Tommycat
08-15-2010, 02:41 AM
There isnít a line. A judge should base his/her ruling on the merits of the case, not on political agendas. However, that isnít always the case. Many rulings have been based on political agendas. One of the most noteworthy in recent years was Bush v. Gore.

Yeah the Florida court deciding to allow selective recounts was very much based on political agendas.

It would be really nice to think that judges would ignore their political leanings and judge based SOLELY on the law(or Constitution depending on the level). Unfortunately that is not the case.

Totenkopf
08-15-2010, 04:59 PM
Yeah the Florida court deciding to allow selective recounts was very much based on political agendas.

It would be really nice to think that judges would ignore their political leanings and judge based SOLELY on the law(or Constitution depending on the level). Unfortunately that is not the case.

Well, in a way, the irony is that Gore pushed for it to go to the USSC, iirc. Fact is, both sides were accusing each other of rigging the election and either result would have given us a "selected" president in the eyes of the side that lost.

Ping
08-15-2010, 05:26 PM
Yeah the Florida court deciding to allow selective recounts was very much based on political agendas.

It would be really nice to think that judges would ignore their political leanings and judge based SOLELY on the law(or Constitution depending on the level). Unfortunately that is not the case.

I've noticed that the Supreme COurt seems to be guilty of this, too.

Tommycat
08-15-2010, 06:31 PM
I've noticed that the Supreme COurt seems to be guilty of this, too.

Haha I was merely pointing out that both sides could have said it. mimartin was obviously going for what you were pointing out. I was simply noting that it was political either way.

Totenkopf has it right. If the decision would have gone the other way, Florida's vote would not have been certified, and actually would have disenfranchised the entire state of Florida. Thus giving the election to Gore.

mimartin
08-15-2010, 09:01 PM
mimartin was obviously going for what you were pointing out.Nope, I was going with the Supreme Court rule in favor of Gore, but since they had stayed the recount, while making their decision, there was not enough time to perform the recount, so Bush won the election. So the recount was legal by Florida Law, but there was not enough time to actual perform the recount.

Oh, and I voted for Bush in that election.

jawathehutt
08-15-2010, 09:44 PM
Thank goodness it was overturned, the mere thought of people different from me being happy was seriously endangering my relationship with my girlfriend.