Apparently, Vermonters don't like being out-done by Iowans.
Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override
Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.
The Legislature voted Tuesday to override Gov. Jim Douglas' veto of a bill allowing gays and lesbians to marry. The vote was 23-5 to override in the state Senate and 100-49 to override in the House. Under Vermont law, two-thirds of each chamber had to vote for override.
The vote came nine years after Vermont adopted its first-in-the-nation civil unions law.
It's now the fourth state to permit same-sex marriage. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Iowa are the others. Their approval of gay marriage came from the courts.
I think the most significant aspect of this particular victory is that it dispels, once and for all, the implication that we often hear from the far right which accuses that the only way to get Americans to approve of same-sex marriage is by "forcing" the issue through the Courts and having "liberal activist judges" act by "legislating from the bench." It was a horsepuckey argument, anyway--after all, one of the well established roles of our Court is to fight discrimination by enforcing the Constitutional Principle of Equal Protection--but it is satisfying to see that argument taken neatly off the table by the courageous men and women of the Vermont State Legislature.
Its a great day to be GAY!
TTFN,
Blackout
Good for Vermont. As long as it is not called marriage specifically then same-sex couples should be allowed to have a similar official legal relationship. The other three states have let activist judges change the law which is most likely unconstitutional under their respective constitutions. Courts do not have the authority to infringe on the powers and duties of the legislature. Also, courts cannot change definitions of words like "marriage" and its a pity the governors of those three states allowed them to do so. I strongly support such laws like Vermont passed but believe that any judge who would try to do something so dangerous as in Iowa and California should be thrown in jail. If I were the governor of Iowa I would throw all seven of those idiots (Supreme Court Justices) into prison and press the legislature to do it properly. The judges would then think twice before trying to do something so dangerous and un-American. Do you think I'm joking? Well not completely.
Vermont appears to be the fist state to do this legitimately
Assuming by this you mean that Vermont was the first State to legalize same-sex marriage through their legislative bodies, you are incorrect. Actually, California passed legislation to recognize same-sex marriages, but (just like in Vermont) that legislation was vetoed by a Republican Governor.
As long as it is not called marriage specifically then same-sex couples should be allowed to have a similar official legal relationship.
There's a term for that...its called "separate but equal," and if Brown v. Board of Education teaches us anything, its that "separate but equal" never really is.
The other three states have let activist judges change the law which is most likely unconstitutional under their respective constitutions. Courts do not have the authority to infringe on the powers and duties of the legislature.
Actually, they do. Its called Judicial Review and it is a well-established Power of the Judicial Branch of our Governement at both the State and Federal levels.
Also, courts cannot change definitions of words like "marriage" and its a pity the governors of those three states allowed them to do so.
Actually, definitions in the English Language are defined by common useage, not Law, and the inclusion of same-sex relationships under the term "marriage" has been a part of the common vernacular for many years, and is already recognized as such in Black's Dictionary of Law (the defintive source for legal terminology in our country and used by our Courts). And, I think the Massachusetts Supreme Court answered this red herring perfectly in the case of Goodridge vs. Dept of Public Health.
The Law does not permit a group of citizens to carve out a class of citizens from access to a term, any more than it allows them to deny access to a public institution. Your support (such as it is) is appreciated, but your preconditions are unwelcome, and as this decision reflects, unconstitutional.
I strongly support such laws like Vermont passed but believe that any judge who would try to do something so dangerous as in Iowa and California should be thrown in jail. If I were the governor of Iowa I would throw all seven of those idiots (Supreme Court Justices) into prison and press the legislature to do it properly. The judges would then think twice before trying to do something so dangerous and un-American. Do you think I'm joking? Well not completely.
Joking or not, your radical response demonstrates a frank ignorance of Constitutional Law. If the Court steps in and strikes down a Law on the basis of a Constitutional conflict, that Court is doing its job. The Courts have enumerated powers that are a part of the "checks and balances" built into our system of government. Both the Executive and Legislative branches have similar powers enumerated that enable them to apply checks and balances to the Court as well. The fact that these avenues have not and are not being seriously pursued is a pretty good indicatory that all of these claims of "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" are nothing more the winging of pundits who are looking for political capital. They certainly have no merit in any sort of REAL discussion of the relevant legalities.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
If a state legislature passes a bill and it is vetoed by the governor and not overriden by said legislature according to the state constitution then no legitimate law has been passed. But of course I'm sure you already knew that. "Seperate but equal" principle does not apply here. There is no basis for the courts to "legalize" same-sex marriage marriage because the marriage laws don't discriminate against any class of people but rather play upon a word that means what it means. I guess I would support a state legislature allowing same sex couples to have official marriages but there is no question that the courts have no role in this matter. Also, gay people are not targeted or singled out by laws that prohibit same-sex marriage because number one, there is no law that says you have to be heterosexual to get married so marriage is available for everyone including homosexuals. Number two, heterosexual people have the same exact restrictions palced upon them, as far as what sex they are allowed to enter into a marriage with. Nobody is allowed to marry someone of the same sex regardless of sexual orientation. Likewise, anybody is allowed to get married to someone of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation. So Brown v. Board is a very innappropriate reference for the point you were trying to make.
My response may have been radical but I was indeed half kidding. If I were a governor or president I would most definetely follow the letter of the constitution. No need to worry. You also need to realize that if it weren't for "radical" people we would still think the earth was the center of a very small universe, Black Americans would still be enslaved, Black Americans would never have the right to vote and be free of lynching, abortion would be illegal (which it kind of should be) and women would not have the right to vote. Also, it was the Republicans that were the "radicals" that made those changes all the while being fiercely opposed by Democrats. NAACP, Affirmative Action, and earlier efforts to allow women to vote an to end slavery were driven by "radical" Republicans. And if it were left up to the beloved courts slavery would almost certainly hvae been around for many more decades (Dred Scot v Sandford). The courts consist of humans that are equally capable of screwing up and oppressing rights of citizens just as our elected lawmaking bodies are. However, the state legislatures and Cngress consist of many more people than the courts do and have a lot of procedure in place to prevent bad legislation. When they do screw up, and they will, the voters can kick them out. Such cannot really be said for state courts and especially not federal courts. I mean do you think the judges in this country are like super humans or something? They're not they're just regular people capable of making bad choices. I'm sure historical folks like Dred Scot, Abe Lincoln, and Frederick Douglass would definetely agree with me. Remember Dred Scot when you think the courts are better policy makers than the elected lawmakers. Remember Roe v. Wade (close to 50 million victims of legalized homocide) and remember that Dred Scot actually had more constituional basis, although still unconstitutional, than Roe v. Wade.
I know you have a personal stake in this issue but don't let it cloud your judgement. I acknowledge (as a straight person) it is easier said than done. But think independentely my friend (you may reject that statement) because its really the only way of thinking
If a state legislature passes a bill and it is vetoed by the governor and not overriden by said legislature according to the state constitution then no legitimate law has been passed. But of course I'm sure you already knew that.
Touche'.
"Seperate but equal" principle does not apply here.
Sure it does.
Hmmm...that sounds a lot like "separate but equal" to me.
There is no basis for the courts to "legalize" same-sex marriage marriage because the marriage laws don't discriminate against any class of people but rather play upon a word that means what it means. I guess I would support a state legislature allowing same sex couples to have official marriages but there is no question that the courts have no role in this matter.
Obviously, you are incorrect, as several states have done so and in the only one of those instances which has reached the Supreme Court of the United States (the Goodridge decision), the High Court upheld the decision of the State Supreme Court.
Also, gay people are not targeted or singled out by laws that prohibit same-sex marriage because number one, there is no law that says you have to be heterosexual to get married so marriage is available for everyone including homosexuals.
This is a legal fallacy known as the "equal application argument." It is a common but rarely sucessful tactic of those who oppose the inclusion of various minorities under the mantle of Equal Protection. The Court established the legal limits of this argument all the way back in Loving v. Virginia (1967)..
Number two, heterosexual people have the same exact restrictions palced upon them, as far as what sex they are allowed to enter into a marriage with.
Factually incorrect. You are myopically limiting the scope of your analysis to exclude the comparison of a gay man (for example) and a heterosexual woman. Both a citizen, but the gay man cannot access the same right as the straight woman. Thus, your comparison fails. I think the Iowa Supreme Court did a better job of explaining it, though...
My response may have been radical but I was indeed half kidding.
Then your idea is only half-crazy.
If I were a governor or president I would most definetely follow the letter of the constitution.
If that's you're plan, you might actually want to READ the Federal and State Constitutions. So far, you have not demonstrated a well-founded understanding of the contents of those documents.
Also, it was the Republicans that were the "radicals" that made those changes all the while being fiercely opposed by Democrats.
The party to whom you refer no longer exists. THAT Republican Party (you know, the one that really was for smaller government and greater personal freedom) died in the late sixties and early seventies when the racism-tainted Souther Democrats defected to the Republican Party. (As a Georgia native, I can tell you that many of our State's current-day Republicans ran "back in the day" as pro-segregation Democrats). Combined with the rise in influence of the religious right in the modern Republican Party (which thankfully, seems to be a trend that is finally beginning to reverse itself), and the Republican Party of the last three decades has not been the shining defender of freedom and equality that it once was.
When they do screw up, and they will, the voters can kick them out. Such cannot really be said for state courts and especially not federal courts.
Factually incorrect. On the federal level (and even in the Supreme Court), Justices are subject to removal through impeachment. On a State level, the process vaies depending on where you are. In Iowa, for example, Justices are subject to a one-year initial term, after which they must face a retention election, before continuing to serve for the rest of their limited, eight-year terms.
I mean do you think the judges in this country are like super humans or something?
No, but they are well trained in the Law (which alone makes me unwilling to accept your sometimes radical and often poorly-informed legal opinions over theirs) and are part of a system which judges iteslf even more harshly than YOU do, with an ethical code that permits no tolerance whatsoever for ignorance, incompetence or corruption.
They're not they're just regular people capable of making bad choices.
That's true...but that's also why the Supreme Courts in this country (both State and Federal) consist of panels of Justices, so that the likelihood of the poor judgement of an individual Judge effecting the outcome of a case is minimalized. Iowa's Supreme Court, for example, consists of seven sitting Justices. Their decision in Varnum v. Brien was 7 - 0. Are you really suggesting that all seven of these highly qualified, experienced professionals don't understand the basic nature of the Constitution and Laws which are the sole focus of their training and careers?
I'm sure historical folks like Dred Scot, Abe Lincoln, and Frederick Douglass would definetely agree with me. Remember Dred Scot when you think the courts are better policy makers than the elected lawmakers. Remember Roe v. Wade (close to 50 million victims of legalized homocide) and remember that Dred Scot actually had more constituional basis, although still unconstitutional, than Roe v. Wade.
I can think of an even better (or at least more relevant) decision, which would be the case of Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). The simple fact is that whether you like it of not, the Supreme Courts in this country have the authority to decide if a law is or is not consistent with our State and Federal Constitutions. They do make mistakes, but when they make those mistakes only those same Courts have the authority to make that determination, as they did in the case of Bowers which they overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Historically, the Courts have proved themselves to be right far more often than they are wrong, and when they have been wrong the Courts have proved themselves willing to revisit and issue new opinions when the circumstances warrant it.
I know you have a personal stake in this issue but don't let it cloud your judgement. I acknowledge (as a straight person) it is easier said than done. But think independentely my friend (you may reject that statement) because its really the only way of thinking
I would suggest that the arguments I present are well-founded in an understanding of Constitutional Law, and are supported by numerous standing decisions in both the State and Federal bodies of precedent. Having a "stake" in the issue doesn't preclude one from performing an informed, critical review of a matter. And, considering that the preponderance of standing judgements which have been issued by the Courts of our country aggre with me, even though that do not share that same "stake," I would usggest that it is you rather than I who needs to revise his way of thinking.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Hmmm...that sounds a lot like "separate but equal" to me.
Not in the way it was in Brown v. Board of Education. I see what you're saying but it's not an awesome analogy.
There is no basis for the courts to "legalize" same-sex marriage marriage because the marriage laws don't discriminate against any class of people but rather play upon a word that means what it means. I guess I would support a state legislature allowing same sex couples to have official marriages but there is no question that the courts have no role in this matter.
Obviously, you are incorrect, as several states have done so and in the only one of those instances which has reached the Supreme Court of the United States (the Goodridge decision), the High Court upheld the decision of the State Supreme Court.
Yes, obviously. Seriously, I don't understand what you are trying to say here but I am obviously incorrect because I don't subscribe to your opinion. That was sarcastic by the way.
If I were a governor or president I would most definitely follow the letter of the constitution.
If that's you're plan, you might actually want to READ the Federal and State Constitutions. So far, you have not demonstrated a well-founded understanding of the contents of those documents. [/quote]
Good idea. I will read the federal and Pennsylvania constitution again because I have done so several times in the past but there is always more to memorize and discover. I would recommend that you stop inappropriately judge my understanding of the constitution negatively because I use the document rather than the courts to base my understanding of constitutional law upon.
Also, it was the Republicans that were the "radicals" that made those changes all the while being fiercely opposed by Democrats.
The party to whom you refer no longer exists. THAT Republican Party (you know, the one that really was for smaller government and greater personal freedom) died in the late sixties and early seventies when the racism-tainted Souther Democrats defected to the Republican Party. (As a Georgia native, I can tell you that many of our State's current-day Republicans ran "back in the day" as pro-segregation Democrats). Combined with the rise in influence of the religious right in the modern Republican Party (which thankfully, seems to be a trend that is finally beginning to reverse itself), and the Republican Party of the last three decades has not been the shining defender of freedom and equality that it once was.
Well you're wrong. It is, at best, a half truth that racist Democrats joined the Republican party in large numbers in the 60s and 70s. I mean, I guess KKK bigot Robert Byrd missed the memo heh? I'm a Democrat but I see right through the lies and corruption of both parties. The core Republican philosophy is the best policy for Americans of all racial heritages and economic backgrounds. It is the politicians representing the party that have made it a laughingstock. The Democrat politicians like Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi are even worse than their Republican counter-parts. Check this website out. http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp
Also check out this organization of good folks in Florida and their awesome (only if you like truth) magazine available for free online. http://www.nbra.info/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.BlackRepublicanMagazine&...
When they do screw up, and they will, the voters can kick them out. Such cannot really be said for state courts and especially not federal courts.
Factually incorrect. On the federal level (and even in the Supreme Court), Justices are subject to removal through impeachment. On a State level, the process vaies depending on where you are. In Iowa, for example, Justices are subject to a one-year initial term, after which they must face a retention election, before continuing to serve for the rest of their limited, eight-year terms.
Here you go with your factually incorrect rampage. Are you stupid? Tell me how the American voters can remove a federal judge who makes bad decisions? They can't meaning I was factually correct. There's no need to lie about it Blackout and you even affirmed the only method as to which federal judges are subject to removal. You are right about the state level and that is why I worded my statement the way I did. I said it "Cannot really be said" about state judges because many states have voter retention of judges and elections of judges but both are usually only once in ten years or so. Some states are modeled more after the federal courts. Someone owes me an apology for a hotheaded remark.
They're not they're just regular people capable of making bad choices.
That's true...but that's also why the Supreme Courts in this country (both State and Federal) consist of panels of Justices, so that the likelihood of the poor judgement of an individual Judge effecting the outcome of a case is minimalized. Iowa's Supreme Court, for example, consists of seven sitting Justices. Their decision in Varnum v. Brien was 7 - 0. Are you really suggesting that all seven of these highly qualified, experienced professionals don't understand the basic nature of the Constitution and Laws which are the sole focus of their training and careers?
If it is important for the effect of one lunatic to be minimized wouldn't the state legislatures and Congress be more adequate choices for policy making? Most states have seven justices on their Supreme Courts, some just five (typically states that have no intermediate appeals court) and a few have nine like Alabama and Mississippi. Most state legislatures have a lot more than that. Congress consists of 535 seats, the federal supreme court consists of nine and you would choose the supreme court as the best policy maker if the opinion of one individual on the whole is to be minimized? Are you stupid or just not very bright? Come on you should know better.
I'm sure historical folks like Dred Scot, Abe Lincoln, and Frederick Douglass would definetely agree with me. Remember Dred Scot when you think the courts are better policy makers than the elected lawmakers. Remember Roe v. Wade (close to 50 million victims of legalized homocide) and remember that Dred Scot actually had more constituional basis, although still unconstitutional, than Roe v. Wade.
I can think of an even better (or at least more relevant) decision, which would be the case of Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). The simple fact is that whether you like it of not, the Supreme Courts in this country have the authority to decide if a law is or is not consistent with our State and Federal Constitutions. They do make mistakes, but when they make those mistakes only those same Courts have the authority to make that determination, as they did in the case of Bowers which they overturned in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Historically, the Courts have proved themselves to be right far more often than they are wrong, and when they have been wrong the Courts have proved themselves willing to revisit and issue new opinions when the circumstances warrant it.
What a lame argument man. You are the one who doesn’t like the facts. As I said before I go by the letter of the applicable constitution(s) to an issue in American politics not the word of lawyers. The courts established the power of supremacy over all other branches of government not the constitution. I am aware that judicial review existed before the U.S. was formed but it wasn’t a part of our system to the extent that it has become. Many people had a problem with what they, somewhat falsely, saw as Bush claiming more power for the executive branch. How come the courts can give themselves more and more power without being subjected to substantial checks by other branches but not the president? Does it just depend on whether the assumed power fits your opinion? There is a long precedent of American presidents claiming the authority that Bush did including, and perhaps most prominently, Abraham Lincoln.
I know you have a personal stake in this issue but don't let it cloud your judgement. I acknowledge (as a straight person) it is easier said than done. But think independentely my friend (you may reject that statement) because its really the only way of thinking
I would suggest that the arguments I present are well-founded in an understanding of Constitutional Law, and are supported by numerous standing decisions in both the State and Federal bodies of precedent. Having a "stake" in the issue doesn't preclude one from performing an informed, critical review of a matter. And, considering that the preponderance of standing judgements which have been issued by the Courts of our country aggre with me, even though that do not share that same "stake," I would usggest that it is you rather than I who needs to revise his way of thinking.
Of course you think your arguments are good. I don’t want to hurt your feelings so I’ll refrain from further bringing you down from an undeserved intellectual platform that you placed yourself up
Not in the way it was in Brown v. Board of Education. I see what you're saying but it's not an awesome analogy.
Why not? In Brown, the Court was addressing a parallel public institution that had set up in order to perpetuate an invidious form of discrimination. The Court in Iowa did exactly the same thing. Both the institution and the group being invidiously discriminated against were different in Brown, but the legal principle was exactly the same.
Yes, obviously. Seriously, I don't understand what you are trying to say here but I am obviously incorrect because I don't subscribe to your opinion.
No, you are "obviously incorrect" because you said, "the courts have no role in this matter" even though a case of this sort was not struck down when sent to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Constitution of Iowa plainly defines the role of the Court, as does the Constitution of the United States. And on top of that, the Courts have a long and well-established history of acting in civil rights cases to require that legislatures conform with the constitutional principle of Equal Protection.
I would recommend that you stop inappropriately judge my understanding of the constitution negatively because I use the document rather than the courts to base my understanding of constitutional law upon.
I can only judge you based on what you show us, and so far you haven't shown us much that would convince me that you are well informed in the matter of Constitutional Law. I would further suggest that you should reconsider your dismissal of the relevance of the Courts in assisting your understanding of the Constitutional Law, due to the fact that interpreting the Law is the primary duty of the Judicial Branch of Government, and their determinations are authoritative in these matters.
Well you're wrong. It is, at best, a half truth that racist Democrats joined the Republican party in large numbers in the 60s and 70s. I mean, I guess KKK bigot Robert Byrd missed the memo heh?
I'll see your Robert Byrd, and raise you a Strom Thurmond.
As for what constitutes "large numbers," approximately 30% of Southern Democrats (including a great many of the notorious "Dixiecrats" who were the socially conservative Southern voting block that supported segregation) left the party after Lyndon B. Johnson supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Most of them ended up in the Republican Party during the following years in which social conservatism became a Republican mainstay (which it was NOT during the fight for desegregation). The modern social conservatism in the Republican Party comes from the rise of the christian right as a core constituency of the Republican base, and it naturally attracted former Dixiecrats.
Here you go with your factually incorrect rampage. Are you stupid? Tell me how the American voters can remove a federal judge who makes bad decisions? They can't meaning I was factually correct. There's no need to lie about it Blackout...Someone owes me an apology for a hotheaded remark.
Nope...you get no apology because you are still wrong. Federal Judges (including the Justices of the Supreme Court) can be removed from office through the process of impeachment. Article II. Section 4 of the United States Constitution plainly notes that...
The process is rather involved, but in 1805 a Supreme Court Justice (Samuel Chase) was successfully impeached, though he was ultimately exonerated and not removed from office. Now, this process cannot be applied simply because you don't like the decisions that a Justice makes, but it does give the American People the ability to remove Justices who act unethically or who intentionally misrepresent the law.
If it is important for the effect of one lunatic to be minimized wouldn't the state legislatures and Congress be more adequate choices for policy making?
Usually, yes. But the fact is that legislators have a motivation to answer to the populist concerns of their constituents, and as such often lack the objectivity and frankly honesty to be allowed to pass laws without some kind of check in place to reign them in when they do things that the Law says they cannot. Its called, "checks and balances," remember? The Judicial Branch only rarely step in to strike down an Act of the Legislative Branch, but their ability to do so in clearly defined in the Constitution, and serves as a valid check against potential abuses by the Legislative Branch.
And don't forget, the Legislative Branch has its own powers that check and balance the power of the Judicial Branch. If the equation only worked "one way," then your concern might have some merit. But checks and balances work both ways, and if the Executive and Legislative Branches really felt that their powers were being infringed upon, they have the ability and the authority to do something about it.
As I said before I go by the letter of the applicable constitution(s) to an issue in American politics not the word of lawyers.
Lawyers have to answer to Judges, too. A Judge is someone who (in theory) is educated regarding the law, and who has been trained to exhibit a specialized level of objectivity in determining the outcome of adversarial arguments. The reason Judges are afforded such respect in our society is that its a difficult job that not just any schmoe off the street can perform. Your opinions, even if well meant, are unfortunately based in an ignorance of the subject matter of Constitutional Law, which often seems a bit strange and even incomprehensible to those who have not studied and been trained in its practice.
How come the courts can give themselves more and more power without being subjected to substantial checks by other branches but not the president?
This is a common neo-conservative canard that simply isn't true. The Executive Branch's checks on the Court is the power of appointment. Bush was able to sit TWO new Supreme Court Justices whose philosophies reflected his own. That's a power check on the power of the Court. The Legislature has similar powers (i.e. impeachment and the power to limit jurisdiction), but their choice not to pursue those avenues are seated in the fact that the American People view the Judicial Branch has traditionally enjoyed (and still does) the highest approval ratings of any branch of our government. The People are far more satisfied with the Courts than they are with the actions of the Congress and our (former) President. Thus, there is not onus from the electorate that would cause the Legislature to act to limit the Courts.
Of course you think your arguments are good. I don’t want to hurt your feelings so I’ll refrain from further bringing you down from an undeserved intellectual platform that you placed yourself up
Hey, if you're feeling froggy...JUMP MAN! JUMP! Personally, I will leave it to our readers to decide which of us has delivered the more thoughtful and well-supported argument. And trust me, its difficult to hurt my feelings. Better flamers than you have tried.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Gay people are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex and not people of the same sex. Straight people are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex and not people of the same sex. Same standards apply to both. In the segregated south children could not attend certain schools because of their skin color. They had different rights depending on their skin color. There was an unacceptable oppression of rights. It's a bad comparison and I'm just calling you on it. It does not suggest I believe that same-sex marriage should be allowed or prohibited or that I believe there is an oppression of rights or not. It's a bad fallacious argument that's all.
I'm very aware of the process involved as far as removing Federal judges go. I know that Alcee L. Hastings was successfully impeached and convicted by Congress in the late 80s. He is now a U.S. representative from Florida. A judge (Nixon I believe his name was) was also impeached around that time. I'm aware of Samuel Chase's impeachment. You still have yet to tell me how the ability of Congress to remove a judge from office means that the American voters at large have the option of voting for or against bad judges. You were wrong but you're also thick headed on this one. Hopefully I got through this time.
Were do you draw the line on what the courts can do to "protect individual rights" or overrule the elected Congress? If you want to be a sheep and just follow what judges say there own power is, regardless, to the constitution, then you are a fool. With your nonsensical philosophy what is to stop federal courts from overturning a presidential pardon or the proper removal of a judge from office?
the Courts have a long and well-established history of acting in civil rights cases to require that legislatures conform with the constitutional principle of Equal Protection.
And slavery had an even longer and more established history of existence. Dred Scot v Sandford is a great example of the courts acting in civil rights cases. I mean who the hell is Congress to tell people they have to give up their property (slaves) if they set foot in a free state? Its good the court put a stop to such nonsense (sarcastic) isn't it?
But the fact is that legislators have a motivation to answer to the populist concerns of their constituents, and as such often lack the objectivity and frankly honesty to be allowed to pass laws without some kind of check in place to reign them in when they do things that the Law says they cannot. Its called, "checks and balances," remember? The Judicial Branch only rarely step in to strike down an Act of the Legislative Branch, but their ability to do so in clearly defined in the Constitution, and serves as a valid check against potential abuses by the Legislative Branch.
They make the law silly. Oh I forgot the Supreme Court does that. My bad. Excuse the ignorance on my part. Very limited Judicial nullification should be tolerated and respected (D.C. v. Heller for example). A law must violate the constitution, not just kinda infringe on this right that is implied by something implied in the text of the actual document. With your mentality there simply is no appropriate checks on the courts. It boils down to you trusting the judges to run the country better than Congress. Maybe the courts only rarely strike down a law, but your philosophy supports allow them to do so whenever they damn well please. Your philosophy would also effectively grant courts the power to ratify the constitution via a written opinion. And they're ability to do so is not clearly defined in the constitution any one bit. It may be clearly defined in their rulings but not the constitution. At least not the U.S. constitution. You have a point about Iowa's constitution however. perhaps I jumped the gun o that one. I have never read the Iowa constitution and it may very well allow the courts to be the supreme policy makers but I doubt it. I can't trust your word because you said the same thing for the federal constitution. Also, voters should serve as a valid check against a bad legislature. Recently voters obviously have neglected this duty by constantly re-electing scumbags, crooks, or even murderers in Ted Kennedy's case. If the American people fail to vote scumbags like harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their fellow thugs out of office, than so be it.
Lawyers have to answer to Judges, too. A Judge is someone who (in theory) is educated regarding the law, and who has been trained to exhibit a specialized level of objectivity in determining the outcome of adversarial arguments. The reason Judges are afforded such respect in our society is that its a difficult job that not just any schmoe off the street can perform. Your opinions, even if well meant, are unfortunately based in an ignorance of the subject matter of Constitutional Law, which often seems a bit strange and even incomprehensible to those who have not studied and been trained in its practice.
The point was that judges are lawyers. If you think the average American idiot couldn't do a better job at being a judge then the screwballs that are many of the judges nowadays then you think the American people are even stupider than I do. Haven't you read or heard about asinine, unjust and outrageous decisions that judges have made? Our country's fate is hell if the average American could not make better rulings than the substantial amount of judges who make horrendous and erroneous decisions. I can't believe I have to actually DEFEND the intelligence of Americans with you.
If the judicial branch has the highest approval rating it really doesn't matter that much and I absolutely agree that the courts are "better" than Congress and the socialist president determined to, in his own words, "Spread the wealth." The courts suck but they are better than most countries courts. The reason the courts win higher approval then the other two branches is because they do less damage. The Supreme Court is just like Congress in the sense that I cringe when either has to make an important, but easy, decision because they usually screw it up. They generally make less political decisions than Congress and the President so that is clearly their saving grace.
Gay people are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex and not people of the same sex.
just like blacks and whites could get married, only not to each other.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When a Black person could marry a Black person only and a White person could marry a White person only, there was clear, physical discrimination in marriage laws. Individuals had unequal and different rights depending solely on skin color. Same sex marriage is different because nobody is allowed to do it, at least in 46 states now. Nobody has different physical rights according to any physical characteristic. If you can't see that then you are blinded by your (presumed) persuasion that people should be allowed to marry others of the same sex.
I think that same sex marriage, essentially, should be legalized to the extent that opposite sex marriage is. I am not making an argument for keeping marriage between a man and a woman, I am pointing out an analogy that is fallacious. I am fair when I point out bad arguments and I am not biased to accept a bad analogy or argument any more so if it concurs with my point of view. In fact. I sometimes hold arguments and analogies that concur with my current point of view I agree with to the highest standards. Just at least think impartially about how your analogous argument may appear to be appropriate and applicable on the surface, but is, in reality, a bad argument. That's all.
...in these circumstances, then it is YOU who are "blinded" by your personal biases.
When a Black person could marry a Black person only and a White person could marry a White person only, there was clear, physical discrimination in marriage laws.
There is a clear physical discrimination in these cases for gay couples, too. The Courts have and continue to recognize this. Its a shame that you refuse to do so, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Individuals had unequal and different rights depending solely on skin color.
And now, certain people are trying to prevent gay people from marrying solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. The more you talk about it, the more obvious the argument of "similar situation" would seem to apply.
Same sex marriage is different because nobody is allowed to do it, at least in 46 states now.
It really takes the wind out of the sails of absolutism when you say "nobody is allowed...EXCEPT," doesn't it, lol. Of course, the same thing was true in the Loving case. At the time of the 1956 decision, 14 States had repealed their own anti-miscegination laws (some through legislative acts, and some through the Courts, c.f. Perez v. Sharp, which I cited for you above), and 15 States still had active statutes prohibiting the practice. The other States were officially "neutral," though most still prohibited the practice though practical though not legally codified means.
Nobody has different physical rights according to any physical characteristic. If you can't see that then you are blinded by your (presumed) persuasion that people should be allowed to marry others of the same sex.
A couple of points, here.
1) The rights of citizens of the United States are not protected solely on the basis of their physical characteristics. It is just as unconstitutional to deny someone a basic freedom because their religion or creed (both pure choices) as they are because of their race (or any other physical component of their person).
I think that same sex marriage, essentially, should be legalized to the extent that opposite sex marriage is. I am not making an argument for keeping marriage between a man and a woman, I am pointing out an analogy that is fallacious. I am fair when I point out bad arguments and I am not biased to accept a bad analogy or argument any more so if it concurs with my point of view.
So far, the only thing which would permit to make the determination that my argument is "bad" is that YOU don't agree with it. In terms of the legal precedents involved, my argument is not only valid, but has been effective in a number of cases, including the Goodridge case which the SCOTUS refused to overturn. In fact, the Supreme Court established this correlation between the two issues (comparing discrimination because of sexual orientation to discrimination based on race in the decision of Lawrence v. Texas). So, unless you have something more substantial than the fact that you do not agree, I would propose that my position is significantly better supported than your own.
In fact. I sometimes hold arguments and analogies that concur with my current point of view I agree with to the highest standards. Just at least think impartially about how your analogous argument may appear to be appropriate and applicable on the surface, but is, in reality, a bad argument. That's all.
The way to "think impartially" in terms of the law is to look at the standing legal precedents, and form an opinion based on the principles that those precedents set forth. I have done so. You have not. The ultimate test, of course, is to see what the Courts decide when they are asked the question at hand...oh, wait, we ARE seeing that and guess what...they seem to be agreeing with me more often than the do with you.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Gay people are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex and not people of the same sex. Straight people are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex and not people of the same sex. Same standards apply to both. In the segregated south children could not attend certain schools because of their skin color. They had different rights depending on their skin color. There was an unacceptable oppression of rights.
As with many things, this is a matter of "spin" that is designed to obscure the legislative intent of a statute. For example, would could just as easily frame school attendance during segregation, thus...
Black children are only allowed to go to schools with children of the same race. . White children are only allowed to go to schools with children of the same race. The same standards apply to both.
But as the Court pointed out in Loving...
The real issue with your contention, however, is that it fundamentally misrepresents the nature of the right in question, which the Supreme Court has defined as the freedom to marry.
The idea is put succinctly in the landmark case of Perez v. Sharp...
You still have yet to tell me how the ability of Congress to remove a judge from office means that the American voters at large have the option of voting for or against bad judges. You were wrong but you're also thick headed on this one. Hopefully I got through this time.
You seem to be operating under the delusion that the United States is a direct democracy. The People have the means to express themselves, but The People have also expressed that they believe that the best way to do this is through a representative form of goverment. This may come as a surprise to you, but the American Voters elect the members of Congress to represent them in actions of this sort. The member of a Representative Republic act through their elected representatives, limited only by the higher expression of the will of the people, which is of course the Constitution.
It's a bad comparison and I'm just calling you on it.
Well, you go ahead and do so if it makes you feel better. But the fact is that this argument has been used to the satisfaction of the SCOTUS as well as several State Supreme Courts regarding this very issue. If its a good enough argument that the experts at that level acknowledge it in their decisions, I think I can take YOUR criticism with a grain or two of salt.
I'm very aware of the process involved as far as removing Federal judges go.
If this were true, then I cannot fathom why you would had made the false statement regarding the inability of voters to see a justice removed from the bench.
Were do you draw the line on what the courts can do to "protect individual rights" or overrule the elected Congress?
Those limits are broadly defined by the Constitution (Article III, Section 2) and specifically delimited through the Congress's power to define the Jurisdiction of the Court.
If you want to be a sheep and just follow what judges say there own power is, regardless, to the constitution, then you are a fool.
I would suggest that blindly following the acts of Congress places you in a far larger herd than my own.
With your nonsensical philosophy what is to stop federal courts from overturning a presidential pardon or the proper removal of a judge from office?
Easy. These are powers that have been enumerated to the Executive and Legislative Branches as checks against the powers of the Judicial Branch. Those enumerations are absolute. The Constitution excepts these powers from the Consideration of the Court. Article II, Section 2 says...
Article I, Section 1 says...
...and in Section 3 continues...
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Its all right there in black and parchment. Are you SURE you've actually read the Constitution? I mean, really, really sure? I know you SAY you have, but we keep coming back to really basic questions that are answered plainly in the text of the Constitution. I can't fathom how you could have really read (much less studied) the Constitution and still be unaware of these facts.
Quote:
the Courts have a long and well-established history of acting in civil rights cases to require that legislatures conform with the constitutional principle of Equal Protection.
And slavery
I've already answered this counter-point at length. The Courts did in fact vacate the Dred Scott opinion, thus rendering your argument moot.
They make the law silly. Oh I forgot the Supreme Court does that. My bad.
Pushing the ad hominem against the Court aside, I think you need a reality check. Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court IS the final arbiter of all questions of Constitutional Law in the country. If there decisions seem "silly" to you, that absurdity is more likely to originate from your ignorance of the Law than it is any lack on their part.
Excuse the ignorance on my part.
If it were accompanied by a little less undeserved arrogance, I might.
Very limited Judicial nullification should be tolerated and respected (D.C. v. Heller for example). A law must violate the constitution, not just kinda infringe on this right that is implied by something implied in the text of the actual document. With your mentality there simply is no appropriate checks on the courts.
These Courts have all found that the laws they struck down did in fact violate the Constitution. Your further comments are pejorative, and were not the findings of the Court. Furthermore, the Constitution clearly defines the checks which the other Branches have to combat a rampant Court if they so perceive it. You failure to understand how those checks work doesn't make them any less real.
It boils down to you trusting the judges to run the country better than Congress. Maybe the courts only rarely strike down a law, but your philosophy supports allow them to do so whenever they damn well please.
The Court does in fact have the right to strike down a law "whenever they damn well please"...right up to the point when Congress jerks their chain and says, "HEEL!" Because this power exists to check them from abusing the powers enumerated to the Courts, those Courts are however just a bit more cautious with how they use their power. THATS HOW CHECKS AND BALANCES WORK!
Your philosophy would also effectively grant courts the power to ratify the constitution via a written opinion. And they're ability to do so is not clearly defined in the constitution any one bit.
Again...are you SURE you've read it? Article VI defines the power of ratification...
The Court is afforded no role, here. You probably meant "the power to amend the Constitution," but that also is covered (this time in Article V)...
Again, there's no defined role for the Judiciary. I'm sorry, but your concerns simply do not have merit.
It may be clearly defined in their rulings but not the constitution.
As for this one, that is kind of the whole point behind Constitutional Law. The Constitution lays the framework for all other Law, and the Judicaial Branch is responsible for seeing that framework interpreted into the detail-laden particulars of case-law.
At least not the U.S. constitution.
My citations above would seem to suggest otherwise.
You have a point about Iowa's constitution however. perhaps I jumped the gun o that one. I have never read the Iowa constitution and it may very well allow the courts to be the supreme policy makers but I doubt it.
Striking down unconstitutional laws does not make the Court the "supreme policy makers" of a State. Doing so is simply the valid, constitutionally defined role of the Court in the law-making process.
I can't trust your word because you said the same thing for the federal constitution.
You don't need to "trust my word." You can read it for yourself. The text of the Constitution plainly enumerates the roles of the various Branches.
Also, voters should serve as a valid check against a bad legislature.
They do. Its called an "election." But, one of the reasons that we are a Republic instead of a direct democracy is to ensure that the rights of individuals are not subjected to the unfettered will of the mob.
Recently voters obviously have neglected this duty by constantly re-electing scumbags, crooks, or even murderers in Ted Kennedy's case. If the American people fail to vote scumbags like harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their fellow thugs out of office, than so be it.
You seem to be going quite far afield in your attempts to find pejorative counter-points. This leads me to believe that your opinons are not objectively based in a firm understanding of the Law.
The point was that judges are lawyers.
Most are, but not all.
As for the Supreme Court, the Constituion does not define the qualifications needed to become a Justice on the Bench of the High Court. Article II, Section 2 states...
Now, I grant that appointing former lawyers and judges is the traditional practice, the Constitution does not actually require it. If you would like to see someone who isn't "learned in law" sitting on the Bench, you should find a candidate who agrees with you and support them.
If you think the average American idiot couldn't do a better job at being a judge then the screwballs that are many of the judges nowadays then you think the American people are even stupider than I do.
This idea seems rather counter-intuitive to me, however. Why would you want someone who is ignorant of the law making decisions about how the law is applied is frankly beyond me. The Law is a specialized profession. You don't go to your auto mechanic to get your appendix taken out, and it seems equally unwise to leave the Law in the hands of someone who is untrained in its nuances.
Haven't you read or heard about asinine, unjust and outrageous decisions that judges have made?
I have read of opinions with which I do not personally agree, but in adversarial law it is always the case that opponents view these matters differently. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE COURTS...i.e. to settle the matter when the opinons of citizens regarding legal matters conflict. Could perhaps be a bit more specific and name a standing decision which you think is "asinine, unjust and outrageous?"
Our country's fate is hell if the average American could not make better rulings than the substantial amount of judges who make horrendous and erroneous decisions. I can't believe I have to actually DEFEND the intelligence of Americans with you.
That's problably because you have invented this argument and projected it onto my opinion. I have not made any comments at all about the intelligence of "average Americans." Perhaps if you limited your comments to what I actually said, you would not have these feelings of incredulity.
If the judicial branch has the highest approval rating it really doesn't matter that much and I absolutely agree that the courts are "better" than Congress and the socialist president determined to, in his own words, "Spread the wealth." The courts suck but they are better than most countries courts. The reason the courts win higher approval then the other two branches is because they do less damage. The Supreme Court is just like Congress in the sense that I cringe when either has to make an important, but easy, decision because they usually screw it up. They generally make less political decisions than Congress and the President so that is clearly their saving grace.
I would suggest that those who find themselves ruled to be at fault by the Court often feel that the Justices "screwed it up." Unless someone is maliciously trying to manipulate our system of jurisprudence, one must assume that the positions being advocated are sincerely held by those who seek a resolution in their favor through the Courts. But, the fact remains that the authority to determine who is "right" and who is "wrong" in matters of Law does in fact lay with the Courts.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
In the segregated south children could not attend certain schools because of their skin color.
But blacks could go to their schools, and whites could go to theirs. And blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites. There's no segregation there....
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
I think the Iowa Supreme Court did a better job of explaining it, though...
I think the Iowa Supreme Court did a better job of explaining it more recently...
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
Also, gay people are not targeted or singled out by laws that prohibit same-sex marriage because number one, there is no law that says you have to be heterosexual to get married so marriage is available for everyone including homosexuals. Number two, heterosexual people have the same exact restrictions palced upon them, as far as what sex they are allowed to enter into a marriage with. Nobody is allowed to marry someone of the same sex regardless of sexual orientation. Likewise, anybody is allowed to get married to someone of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation.
Wow, that's either the most blatant fallacy I've ever seen, or the worst misunderstanding of what it means to be gay that I've ever seen.
Of course, we could also go back to previous issues of marriage and say that white people can't marry black people, but because whites can marry whites and blacks can marry blacks, then there's no discrimination going on. But that doesn't make any sense, does it?
Why is it such a big deal who gets married to whom, anyway? Blackout marrying his significant other has absolutely no effect on my marriage or yours.
The courts consist of humans that are equally capable of screwing up and oppressing rights of citizens just as our elected lawmaking bodies are. However, the state legislatures and Cngress consist of many more people than the courts do and have a lot of procedure in place to prevent bad legislation. When they do screw up, and they will, the voters can kick them out. Such cannot really be said for state courts and especially not federal courts.
Hahaha. I would venture to say that the Supreme Court has more integrity than Congress when it comes to corruption. All the mess with the bailouts and stimulus and the massive amounts of pork that are in the bills are prime example of the corruption within the legislative branch.
And see, here's the thing with the two branches -- the judges made their careers in law decades ago, when they started law school. They've gone to school to be lawyers and eventually judges and rose through the ranks to reach where they are. The legislators, on the other hand, may or may not be lawyers. Some of them are doctors, others are military veterans, still others are teachers, and many are businesspeople. This means that they have nowhere near the same experience with law as the judges do. They also have outside influences from the people that fund their campaigns. Piss those people off and they become hard-pressed to run for the next term.
Remember Roe v. Wade (close to 50 million victims of legalized homocide)
Regardless of the outcome of Roe v Wade, it would still be unconstitutional because the core issue is a clash of rights. It's also a question of when a person is, in fact, a citizen and therefore covered by the country's legal rights. The wording of the Constitution is such that a person has to first be born, and since the abortion issue is dealing with the time before birth, the law has yet another conflict to sort through. It's a rat's nest of issues and is nowhere near as straightforward as most people like to believe.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Also, gay people are not targeted or singled out by laws that prohibit same-sex marriage because number one, there is no law that says you have to be heterosexual to get married so marriage is available for everyone including homosexuals.
But it does merit a comment. Anyone who has followed this issue--which really started when the Supreme Court of Hawaii ruled in 1993 that same-sex couples were being discriminated against by that States refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples--for the last fifteen years knows that the original "Defense of Marriage Act" enacted in Utah was specifically predicated on the explicit basis of excluding same-sex couples from the civil institution of marriage. There is a plain legislative intent behind these Acts and the similarly framed Constitutional Amendments that have been enacted in many States. These laws are specifically and intentionally targetted at gay people. To suggest otherwise is just plain dishonest.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Have you ever heard of checks and balances? Seriously? The legislature doesn't have the power to do whatever it wants because the courts are there to make sure they don't overstep their bounds. They can't just arbitrarily declare a law unconstitutional; they have to have a case come to their bench.
Good thing for us you're not in the executive. Because that would be completely undermining our government, not to mention incredibly frightening.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
You are the one who needs to learn what checks and balances are. I'm sure glad Dred Scot isn't alive today because he (along with others) would be heartbroken to know that people today think the courts are the end-all always altruistic branch of governemnt that should ahve the final say on everything.
I have one question that I want you to seriously answer. If you were Dred Scot in 1857 would you hold the same opinion about the courts that you do now? If you would then you can stop by my house because I've got hours of yard and garden work that you can do without getting one penny from me.
Also, it would be very good if I was the president of this country because I wouldn't mess around. I would tell the courts to enforce their own rulings should they contradict the constitution and like Abe Lincoln, would not hesitate to consider throwing a federal judge in jail for treasonous and/or criminal behavior. I would only resort to throwing a judge in jail in real emergency situations like war, although many judges are scumbag idiots and deserve to go to jail without colelcting $200. You'd be wise to wish I were the president because I really would be an awesome president in so many regards. I'm not a foolsih arrogant person like Obama. At least my first action of office wouldn't be to release dangerous terrorists or bring them onto our homeland. I also would not help the Taliban create a political party because among other things, I don't smoke (or whatveer you do with it) crack. I'd also not be stupid enough to think that the term "moderate Taliban" uis anything but a good example of an oxymoron. I'd be a nice, fun, and fair president. I'd reduce the power and size of the federal government dramatically and re-validate the constituion. I would stop the whole "we can't offend Muslim terrorists" bullshit attitude and kill the bastards rather than let those low-life animals continue to kill our troops. I'd threaten the use of a nuclear weapon against North Korea or Iran if they try to pull something and I would not hesitate to follow through with such an action. I'd be a great president okay?
You may not be aware of this, but Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was vacated by the Supreme Court in Slaughter-House Cases (1873). As I pointed out to you above, the Courts have a history of correcting themselves (and the authority to do so) on those rare occasions when bad decisions do make it through the process.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Assuming what you said is true about the "reversal" of the infamous Dred Scot decision, it is still unacceptable. The court was pushing a political agenda under the guise of protecting individual rights and the end result was a nullification of an act of Congress that would help stop slavery dramatically. You keep saying that the courts "correct themselves" but that means nothing because Congress and state legislatures would undoubtedly "correct themselves" as well and probably a lot sooner. Their usually right in the first place anyhow. Answer this question honestly. Would you mind being a slave for fifteen years in the mid 1800s while you are waiting for the court to correct themselves" or would feel that perhaps Congress should be deciding such issues not federal courts? If you wouldn't mind being a slave for 15 years than I guess I can't argue with you. After all, who wouldn't want to do hard labor for hours a day without a cent of all the while being whipped like an animal? Who wouldn't want to own their own body and not have a single right to your name and be subjected to horrific violence from your "master"? Answer away.
Assuming what you said is true about the "reversal" of the infamous Dred Scot decision, it is still unacceptable.
...when you could just READ the deicision and see for yourself. That's why I provided you with a link to the formal ruling of the Court.
The court was pushing a political agenda under the guise of protecting individual rights and the end result was a nullification of an act of Congress that would help stop slavery dramatically.
I never said that it was anything else. But, we're not really talking about Dred Scott decision. We're talking about the legalization of same-sex marriages through the dual venues of the Legislature and Courts, and whether or not those Courts have the authority to issues rulings such as they did in Massachusetts, California and Iowa. The plain fact of the matter is, they do.
The Courts have an established role to play in the system of checks and balances, which includes the power to nullify acts of Consgress though the process of judicial review. The system isn't perfect, obviously, but it works more often than it does not. And when it does not work, the Executive and Legislative Branches have their own powers of checks and balances to redress (we discussed these a previous debate) any bad decision that the Court might make.
You keep saying that the courts "correct themselves" but that means nothing because Congress and state legislatures would undoubtedly "correct themselves" as well and probably a lot sooner.
The circumstances that led to the decisions in Massachusetts, California and Iowa would seem to suggest your assertions that legislatures "would undoubtedly "correct themselves" as well and probably a lot sooner" is simply not true . But even if it were, that doesn't change the fact that the Court has a well establised role to play in situations like this, as well as both the authority and the responsiblity to act when a citizens brings suit against the government.
Their usually right in the first place anyhow. Answer this question honestly. Would you mind being a slave for fifteen years in the mid 1800s while you are waiting for the court to correct themselves" or would feel that perhaps Congress should be deciding such issues not federal courts? If you wouldn't mind being a slave for 15 years than I guess I can't argue with you. After all, who wouldn't want to do hard labor for hours a day without a cent of all the while being whipped like an animal? Who wouldn't want to own their own body and not have a single right to your name and be subjected to horrific violence from your "master"? Answer away.
You question is leading, but I will answer it nonetheless. Of course I would mind, and of course I would be dissatisfied in such a situation. In such a situation, I would reach towards whichever avenue got me out of such a situation in the quickest way possible. Of course, that's what LGBT people are doing today.
When States like Vermont act responsibly and recognize that the Equal Protection of the Laws includes gay people, that's awesome! But when they don't, the Courts are there to provide a forum in which these citizens can seek redress for their grievances. In the case of Dred Scott, the Legislature did the right thing before the Court did. But in the case of LGBT rights, they have not done so (except in Vermont).
You can gripe about the role of the Courts all you like, but that doesn't change the constitutional reality of The Rule of Law. Every citizen is bound by the Constitution, and that includes Legislators. People often harp about how the courts aren't respecting "the will of the people," but they forget that the Constitution IS the ulimate expression of the will of the people. It exists specifically for the purpose of making sure that the rights of individuals are not infringed upon by the Government, and when the Government fails to act as it should, that same Constitution gives the Court the final authority to force the Executive and Legislative Branches to conform to The Rule of Law.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Obviously I'm the one that needs the instruction, because you keep making statements that blatantly disregard the system, such as:
Silly me to actually think I know what I'm talking about.
See, one of the things about checks and balances means that the courts can't enforce their rulings. Since you seem to love historical cases, how about Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia? In that instance, the court ruled that Georgia could impose no laws over the Cherokee nation, that they were an entirely separate nation. Andrew Jackson, our president at the time, didn't like the ruling, and refused to enforce it. In fact, he went completely against the decision of the court, and enacted a policy that led to a little something called the Trail of Tears.
Our government is by no means perfect. In fact, it can be remarkably behind the times with regard to civil liberties. But, we've corrected many of those mistakes in the past, and we will continue to do so in the future. In the meantime, though, I still don't think you'd be a great president. But, that may just be my bias.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
and I am hesitant to say what I think. I have a tendency to presume too much about people. My guess is you have a military background.
Either way, you are creepy to me. I don't know what half you think you are kidding about and what half you are not, but to be honest, none of what you say is defensible, so I just want to take a moment and give some kudos to blackout, who I know to be capable of much more brutal honesty than he has exhibited with you, as well as bridge and mvenus, all of whom have seemingly been very gracious and forgiving with your apparently radical ignorance.
You contradict yourself so many times, and claim to be half kidding, so I don't really know what you actually think about anything, except that judges who ruled against discrimination against homosexuals should be thrown in jail, and that is enough to make me feel emboldened enough to say that THANK GOD that you are not someone in a position of political power.
I am almost offended by your comments about Muslims, except that you did sneak in "terrorists" as a qualification, so I can't freely go there, yet. Some other members might disagree and would take you to point on that issue as well anyway.
If you like this post, please tip me. All tips will be forwarded to ProgressiveU.org. Keep the site alive!
The United States is a backward and retarded country when it come to marriage. In other countries, marriage is just the agreement of two person. You don't need any stupid law or paper to acknowledge it. If two people want to be couple, they just tell people and they are a couple. All this dumb United States's rule on marriage is just a instutition of power and control. It is aim at keeping the honest working people divided so they won't be able to unite to achieve a common goal.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
I do agree. I am not religious, in fact I am agnostic, but if I wanted to get married, and one day I do, I would not be satisfied with documentation to prove it. If you are truly in a loving relationship, then marriage is more than that. Many couples refuse marriage because of this. That document doesn't prove you love someone even more than if you didn't have it. It is mainly for tax purposes and whatnot. I would want to be married in a church or some other ritual. I don't believe in the government telling me that I am now in a marriage because I bought a piece of paper telling me so. It's the commitment you make to that person. Honestly, I think gay marriage shouldn't be up to the state or federal government. I think it should be left to the church. The Constitution isn't supposed to enforce any religion, and I don't see how it can harm or offend anyone if two people of the same sex want to get married. If that's what you want, then go for it. More power to you. I think the decision should be left to the the church to decide. After all, it's a religious practice to be married in a church. If they just want a marriage license, then let them buy their piece of paper that says they are married...
Miss Alicia
...that heterosexual couples are allowed to get married in a civil ceremony, and are in fact required to sign a legal marriage license, regardless of where the ceremony is conducted. Gay couples are NOT allowed or required to do this in the majority of states. This is discrimination. That's the point. Eliminating marriage altogether is a very different discussion that doesn't really address the issue at hand. In fact, I find the "you're not missing out on anything" argument incredibly offensive.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
My only regret is the lack of a movie with a memorable quote regarding Vermont.
It's ok. Ben and Jerry's more than makes up for this. Celebratory Vermonty Python ice cream FTW!
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!