Wasn’t it just about six weeks ago that Mayor Bloomburg was trotted out at the RNC to put a moderate face on the party? So much for that.
Never mind that this is obviously an extremely popular idea. never mind that San Francisco passed a similar law several years ago which not only largely withstood constitutional challenge but prodded even those suing the city to extend DP benefits despite a court’s ruling they didn’t have to, and hasn’t hurt the city’s bottom line. Never mind that even those who get DP benefits through their employers still only enjoy a pale shadow of the rights and benefits shoveled out to those who can legally marry, and even then the recipient has to pay tax on the benefits like they were income. And never mind that in his supposed concern over increased costs he’s going to spend untold dollars litigating a suit that he’s most likely going to lose.
Fuck you, Mister Mayor. Fuck you, and take your place with the rest of the scumball Republican lying bastard “compassionate conservatives.”
Ah, using the courts to get a result that you can’t get with the legislature.
Naturally, I oppose this tactic. The city legislature passed the bill. Unless there’s some serious contention that it violates a state law, the Mayor should accept that this is the will of the people.
However… if you, Dear Reader, oppose this move by Mayor Bloomberg, but applaud when the courts are used to force a result YOU like over the will of the legislature… then you might examine your own hypocriscy.
It’s his intention, not his method that makes him scummy. On what grounds is he filing? Is there something in the state constitution that says the city can’t do what it did? This is the difference. We believe that the U.S. Constitution protects rights that are currently being infringed. We only ask that the Court do it’s job and protect those rights.
You know, Bricker, I’ve always felt a little sympathy for you on how quick your opponents often are to label you a homophobe, which I think is unfair and inaccurate.
Unfortunetly, your own penchant to start shouting “hypocrite” at anyone who doesn’t follow strict constructionism with the same fundamentalist zeal that you do means that it will only ever be very little sympathy.
And in any case, Bricker is either hijacking the thread or missing the actual point of the OP. The OP is not accusing Bloomberg of “judicial activism”, it’s accusing him of violating the “moderate Republican” principles that he was supposedly espousing during his campaign.
In other words, the complaint is that Bloomberg is being a “scumball lying bastard” by opposing the partner-benefits law. It’s not that he shouldn’t have gone to the courts to enforce his position, it’s that he shouldn’t be taking this position at all. Not if he’s trying to come across as a moderate Republican rather than an anti-gay right-winger.
You and I have had this argument before. I have no intention of having it again. You know I think you’re wrong, I know you think I’m wrong, and as I said, Homebrew summarized my potential response to your claptrap quite nicely.
There is no reasoning with you on this issue. Your ideology is what has you in its crushing grip.
I’m not a hypocrite. When a politician or powerholder advances the false and contemptible notion that gay people have no right to marry, I’m quite consistent in my response. Personally, I feel that attempts to couch ones bigotry in legalism are hypocritical. You may not agree with me.
Bricker, it’s my understanding that you believe the courts should not come into play when something can be decided by the people by vote. And that issues regarding rights are not excluded from that.
Therefore, how can you justify taking money from people to give them legal advice and represent them in court? There’s nothing in the Constitution giving you the right to do so; therefore, according to strict construction, you have no such right.
And clearly any such disputed cases should not be taken to court, but put to the vote of the citizenry at the next general election.
If you’re acting with integrity, you should refund every legal fee you’ve ever collected, and get an honest job.
People write laws. Legislators pass laws. Laws are challenged in the courts. Some laws are struck down as being unconstitutional. Those that wrote the laws that were struck down probably believed that they would pass constitutional muster, right? And obviously those who challenged the laws believed otherwise. Else why go through the expense? Can there not be an honest disagreement about what the constitution says? If yes, why they disdain for those who would bring the question before the arbiter of the constitution?
Also, how can you be sure that a law reflects the will of the people (which is how your post reads to me)? If those who passed the law are handed their hats in the next election, doesn’t that *suggest * that they didn’t know what the will of the people was?
Let me get this straight. You want them to force people doing business with the city to offer benefits to the domestic partners of their employees, but you don’t want them to force people getting married to marry the opposite sex, right? As long as the force suits you personally, it’s all okey dokey, is that it?
I didn’t understand that all. And if that was directed at me, I know nothing of the law in question and was only questioning Bricker’s (perceived, by me) reasoning inthe quoted post.
Okay, maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t get the whole “it’s bad if it was decided in court” thing. Do we discount Brown v. Board of Education because it was decided in court and not by the Kansas legislature? Why do we have a court system at all? Should everything be decided in legislature?
I’m being serious here, I don’t understand. Please fight my ignorance.
I have to say that I’m getting really tired of the assertion that anytime a court interprets the law differently than you do that the court is “legislating from the bench.”
I have actually seen no example of any court doing that. The Mass Supreme Court simply interpreted its own state constitution, which is what its supposed to do.