If we can ignore judges doing their job because it’s only their feelings why would this law dictionary have any weight? It’s equally just feelings isn’t it? I seem to recall that lawyers argue their case before the supreme court {state or federal} and the court makes a ruling about the law because that’s their purpose. Often the members of the court don’t all agree but the decision has legal weight.
You’re arguing judges shouldn’t be activists and interpret the law differently without first taking a popular vote to consider the feelings and complete lack of legal expertise of the general public. History has already shown you’re wrong.
On NPR last night they were discussing how many states have put an amendment in their constitution making marriage available to hetero couples only. 11 I think. They also said if the Supreme Court overturns the Defense of Marriage Act and then declares these amendments Unconstitutional that will be legally bonding. That’s how it works.
Yeah but did they take a popular vote before they wrote the 8th edition? Why’d they have to go and change anything. These new fangled my…cree…wave ovens. We didn’t need those when I was a kid.
It may not be homophobia but I have to wonder why someone would support and promote denying their fellow citizens equal rights when there isn’t a shred of evidence it would harm them or society in any way. The “shroud of normalcy” thing seemed odd. That seemed awfully close to some of the early posts where the reason was “Ewwwww it’s just gross” But hey, the thread is about analyzing the arguments. So far I haven’t seen any that hold up to scrutiny.
So evidently the judges who make decisions you don’t approve of are doing it based on feelings rather than the law but the author of version 7 {not version 8} is a legal authority
Yeah, short term memory loss is not such a good argument.
It’s been explained to you that judges do get to make judgment calls about existing law. It’s their job description. Hence the title. Whether that judgment is proper or not is also a matter for the legal system not necessarily popular vote. I agree with you that their are proper channels to go through to strike down or change laws we don’t like. I don’t want individual judges creating laws at will, however, legislature and popular opinion can and sometimes do create laws that violate civil rights and it is clearly some judges role to make a legally binding decision about such laws. So, if a state decides by popular vote and then legislature that blacks can’t vote or interracial couples can’t marry, judges can declare that unconstitutional regardless of popular opinion. That’s our system.
and in our system of checks and balances the judicial gets to disagree and tell the legislature they’re wrong.
Sure it is. Read the post I linked to and try again.
Oh, on the contrary. Legislators have only made laws since about 1660. Before that, it was Kings proclaiming statutes, sometimes ones drafted by their parliaments but with the King’s decision as final. That Kings formalized statutes enacted by the legislature was a gradual process.
On the other hand, the King’s judges had been making law by rendering decisions that set precedents as far back as 1280, when the Common Law first became a concept. The reason that you are not immediately arrested when you pick up a 50-cent newspaper and toss 50 cents on the counter and walk out of the store with the newspaper, effectively removing the storekeeper’s property from his store, is that contract law says that if he holds merchandise up for sale, you proffer payment in the amount he asks, and there is a meeting of minds symbolized by the transfear of that payment (a ‘consideration’), then you have made a valid purchasae. While some states have codified this into statute, it is the Common Law which established it as a kegak act, and not petty thievery on your part. And every bit of the Common Law is judge-made law. The reason that the U.S. Government does not immediately arrest you for presenting your opinion on the Tenth Amendment is that a judge has decided that your freedom of self-expression extends to posts on internet message boards. The Constitution grants you freedom of speech and of the press, but nowhere does it grant you freedom of keyboard or of modem – you are using neither your mouth nor a printing press to make your posts. The principle that you may freely express yourself, so long as you do not give away national secrets you may be privy to nor libel, slander, incite to riot or direct rebellion against the established government, is judicial interpretation of what the First Amendment is actually guaranteeing.
I am personally very sick of this mantra – “judicial activism” does in fact exist, but ruling in accordance with the logical inferences of clearly specified constitutional principles spelled out in the text, is not judicial activism.
I was just doing a little reading up on DOMA, and it shows how unbelievably far we have come. Less than 13 years ago, DOMA passed 85-14 in the Senate, and 342-67 in the House. There’s no way it would come anywhere near that level of support now.
Its only been 6 years since Lawrence. I remember reading the decision when it came out in law school, having taken bets on the outcome beforehand. I always knew these were battles that were going to be won. I just had no expectation the pace of it would be so unbelievably fast. (Though I am not in any way suggestign that the pace should be slower, or that it isn’t already painfully slow for those whose rights are being suppressed).
It has to be terrifying for the bigots to see just how quickly things have turned against them.
Not only that, but the ACTUAL “most liberal senator” at the time, Paul Wellstone, voted for it! It’s the one dark mark on Wellstone’s service that I can think of.
It took decades for women to get the vote. The black civil rights movement started in a big way in 1955 and arguably culminated in 1965. The Soviet Union collapsed with astonishing speed, 1985-1991. I figure it’s related to the increasing pace of the spread of information. Rules and laws that serve no purpose can be discarded quickly, to (I figure) humanity’s benefit.
Well, heck, that’s what you get for having elected officials who have to cling to short-term plans to try to avoid getting voted out at next opportunity. The advantage of having officials on different timetables means (ideally) they won’t all freak out at once. In the American example, I guess the House is closest to perpetual freakout, the President less so (and not at all in his second term), the Senate less so and the Supreme Court doesn’t at all. It’s not a perfect system, but it limps along with reasonable efficiency.
How about when you’ve probed and prodded and given every opportunity for the person to provide an intellectual reason for his attitudes, providing reasons all the way for why an alternative position might be superior, and he cannot or will not counter? Can you, after exhausting the presumption of intellectuality, *then *conclude that position to be bigotry? To you, is there, in fact, *any *point at which the label can become fair?
Post #360 is a fine example of a person who has claimed an intellectual basis for a hateful view effectively admitting that there is none.
FWIW, I understood the vote at the time to be the Dems way of throwing the inexorably-Clinton-hating Pubbie faction a bone, in the vain hope that they might back off a little. The political calculation seemed to be that the issue would not soon arise as an actual legal matter and that nobody would really be harmed by the bill. If they knew then what they know now etc., the thing would probably have been left on the table.
Okay, to be fair, mswas has repeatedly noted that his personal ideal in this is to extend marriage to same-sex couples (along with adoption by same-sex couples). He is arguing as a devil’s advocate for the other side. I don’t really understand why, except that it possibly amuses him to try to defend the indefensible, but the arguments he’s made throughout this thread were made from the that standpoint.
Coloreds were allowed to sit on the very same buses, and in the very same theaters, and the very same railroad station waiting rooms as whites, too. Just not in the areas reserved by the law for first-class citizens.
Now please try again to explain the difference. This time, include some explanation of the actual value of separate-but-equal in regard to marriage that you propose.
If that was true, I’d expect him to come up with some reasons that a person might oppose SSM, instead of just rehashing the vapid bigotries of those whose opposition is purely emotional. He’s not advocating for the devil, he’s just echoing him.
If he’s been a devil’s advocate, he’s done it very well. He’s made it quite clear that opposition to SSM really is entirely emotional (sometimes cloaked as religious doctrine, sometimes in the wording of “cultural preservation”, sometimes as simple bigotry), and not rational at all. He’s even thrown in a healthy dose of hypocrisy, both along the lines of accusing the deplorers of bigotry as being bigoted themselves and in a desperate attempt to find rationalizations for discrimination.
