Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
I'm neither happy nor sad for this..... as of matter of fact I'm sick of hearing it. But I will note something that does bother me.
What's the point of voting when a certain interest group will take things to court and find a judge that is sympathetic to their cause?
Same with Arizona.
Voting is irrelevant...welcome to modern liberalism.
Now that a certain interest group can take things to court and get a sympathetic judge....then by all reason birthers can now take Obama to court and demand proof of his birth certificate. And other shit....
Prop 8 go away please...our state is bankrupt and personally that should have priority #1.
Not really. If everyone voted that black people should be slaves, then courts should have ever right make them retract, because that's against the constitution. That's pretty much the point of having non-criminal courts.
If you feel that any legislation passed should be able to stand without court intervention, why should we even have a supreme court in the first place?
Gender: Male Location: Welfare Kingdom of California
Honestly, Spoonster (haha! you thought I forgot) I have heard my fair share of this argument and I reject both sides of the fence. Yeah, this is one in which I'm going to lay in middle and cover my ears. In all seriousness California is like a burning barn but not one is fetching to get the water.....everyone is arguing how the fire got started!
This isn't "modern" anything, the system was designed this way. Propositions are voted on before their legality is determined. The judge determined that Prop8 was illegal and overturned it in those grounds.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
That's just silly. Why don't they determine if something is legal before they put it to the vote.
What was the point of people voting in that case in the first place?
Such system is counter productive.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
That makes no sense whatsoever. Who exactly would fight these court cases if nothing is put to the vote?
If the court decides that perhaps drugs could be legal, they should decide if such is a law that does not go against constitution and the likes - if it does not, then its put to the people to vote on it. Pretty logical.
Not getting people to vote on it, then thinking about if it's legal or not.
It's EXACTLY the same process, but reversed.
So there are no ''court cases'' of which you're talking about.
__________________
في هذا العالم ثلاثة أشخاص أفسدوا البشرية : راعي غنم , طبيب و راكب الجمال , و راكب الجمال هو أسوأ نشال و أسوأ مشعوذ بين الثلاثة
Well, this is a case of two types of democratic oppression:
Prop 8: A very simple case of majoritarianism: the oppression of a minority by the majority.
The overturning of Prop 8: A very simple case of purely democratic legislation being overturned by one person. The majority spoke and it was batted aside.
Each side can be argued to be all of these: morally, ethically, and logically wrong.
I don't believe in oppressing the wants of the minority, as long as those wants don't harm me or my family. (AKA, being able to drive while drunk: I'm all for rights, but keep those ***holes out of the driver's seat.)
The science says that there's nothing wrong with a homosexual couple getting married. Mormons can still call it a sin and the couple can stay out of my "private organization" church. It's a win-win. I fail to see the dilemma in gay marriage.
Just because you've 'thought about' whether things will be legal or not doesn't mean they actually will be found to be. Most politicians simply do not have the kind of knowledge of the constitution that judges have. If we had pre-analysis of all laws, they'd end up being carried to court and then they'd be wrong half the time anyway.
Let me give you an example; the health care legislation passed recently. Republicans stonewalled the whole thing for months past where it would have been if it had simply been voted on. If it had to be determined legal before hand, they would have carried suit all the way to the supreme court and gummed the whole thing up for possibly years. Nothing would ever have gotten passed.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 5th, 2010 12:32 AM
