Deep 6 For Prop 8

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Suddenly, it's unconstitutional. Why? Because a judge thinks so?

Yes. That's the system of jurisprudence laid out by the constitution, the supreme law of the land. BTW, this isn't the first case in which a law has been declared unconstitutional (nor the last).

This will inevitably be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. The pro-Prop 8 folks didn't do themselves any favors with their lame arguments in the CA court. We shall see.

Aren't you the same guy who is hoping to see Obamacare ruled unconstitutional by the courts?

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Suddenly, it's unconstitutional. Why? Because a judge thinks so - now.

That's his job.

Apparently changing the long understood meaning of words is in the perview of the Judiciary.

Dictionaries aren't law books.

Just think of all the good this will result in.

And the harm? And what about the harm to gay and lesbian people if the status quo prevails?

We can take the argument even farther. If Prop 8's supporters prevail on appeal we have set a precedent for the denial of rights to the next group which incurs the wrath of organized religion or just a majority of the Mama Grizzlies and Joe the Plumbers in this great land of ours.

John

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yes. That's the system of jurisprudence laid out by the constitution, the supreme law of the land. BTW, this isn't the first case in which a law has been declared unconstitutional (nor the last).

This will inevitably be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS. The pro-Prop 8 folks didn't do themselves any favors with their lame arguments in the CA court. We shall see.

Perhaps it's because any justification for the law is lame.

Pete, it's not just one judge. It's the judiciary. That includes the appellate courts and SCOTUS. If you are in any situation where your rights are violated, say a warrantless invasion into your home, it will initially be one judge who determines whether you are entitled to any remedy.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Boreas

That's his job.



Dictionaries aren't law books.



And the harm? And what about the harm to gay and lesbian people if the status quo prevails?

We can take the argument even farther. If Prop 8's supporters prevail on appeal we have set a precedent for the denial of rights to the next group which incurs the wrath of organized religion or just a majority of the Mama Grizzlies and Joe the Plumbers in this great land of ours.

John

Easy there, Boras...I got me one of them plumber's licenses!!!

Chas

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Charles

Easy there, Boras...I got me one of them plumber's licenses!!!

Chas

I knew it! I just knew it!

John

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

..... If you are in any situation where your rights are violated, say a warrantless invasion into your home, it will initially be one judge who determines whether you are entitled to any remedy.

Regards,

D-Ray

Again that is CLEARLY spelled out. Any ambiguity and it is supposed to go to the final arbitrators - the people.

If the people agree, I will be like Socrates and drink the poison

This stinks like a power grab.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Again that is CLEARLY spelled out.

Hmmm. The prohibition against warrantless searches didn't seem all that clear to Dubya/Cheney and their minions.

This stinks like a power grab.

Who is gaining and losing power here? It has nothing whatsover to do with power.

A simple way to look at it without all the legal mumbo jumbo is that hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens have been made happier in their daily lives by this ruling and nobody else had to give up anything to bequeath this happiness to them. What's not to like?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Hmmm. The prohibition against warrantless searches didn't seem all that clear to Dubya/Cheney and their minions.



Who is gaining and losing power here? It has nothing whatsover to do with power.

A simple way to look at it without all the legal mumbo jumbo is that hundreds of thousands of your fellow citizens have been made happier in their daily lives by this ruling and nobody else had to give up anything to bequeath this happiness to them. What's not to like?

Well said, Finn.

For some, however, it is painful to give up prejudices.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Again that is CLEARLY spelled out. Any ambiguity and it is supposed to go to the final arbitrators - the people.

If the people agree, I will be like Socrates and drink the poison

This stinks like a power grab.

Pete

Do you mean every time there is a need for interpretation, or an open question of law, the litigants need a referendum to resolve their dispute? You completely ignore the function fulfilled by one branch of the government.

By the way, what is ambiguous about equal protection of the law?

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Boreas

I knew it! I just knew it!

John

I guess I'm a step up on Joe...he ain't got a license!!!

Chas