Judges interpret the intent of the law they have nothing to do with how it's worded. People don't define the laws, the politicians do and that's what we vote for them to do. If you don't like the way a law sounds then you should take it up with the politician you've voted for.

Who is the constitution? I'm not sure what you are asking me, it's not a person.

Demian, you're wrong. You don't understand this aspect of the American legal system. I realize you don't trust me on this-- why would you? Is there any authority that you would trust? A law professor? A legal analyst? A judge? A Civics professor? Maybe we could find someone who understands the system to post an authoritative opinion on this site.

We seem to go on and on about this.

hehe there are many authorities I would trust. It's true I don't know the US legal system and is mostly projecting how judges work where I live and what I learned from the law classes I had. I have no problem being corrected. What is it I'm wrong about? I didn't really realize you disagreed with me. My power of perception could be leaving me.

Yes, Politicians are representative or the voice of the poeple( at least that is what it is suppose to be).

YUP!

Well, the constition is the people's will, right?

Not always I'd think and I don't think it always should be. People don't always know what's best of them which is a problem with democracy.

Like I said, it is not a perfect system but it is the best out there as of now.
And we all get frustrated sometimes when the right mind does not seem to prevail.

Here I agree completely. I think it might even be the best system we can think of if people cared enough to educate themselves about the important aspects of what they vote for. (I'm not trying to play all holy here, I don't do it very well myself.)

And the beauty of Democracy is when the wrong mind prevails and the consequence is evident or is felt, then the poeple are free to change course.
Try to do that under communism.

Except sometimes the wrong mind prevails and the consequence is only evident to the people whose rights have been taken away. Then the people don't bother changing course and a certain segment of the population which is supposed to be "endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" is stripped of those rights.

The "unalienable rights" concept is the big change that America's founders made over the democracy in ancient Greece. In ancient Greece all issues were a matter of public vote-- there were no rights that simply came along with being a human being.

BTW, according to the Oxford dictionary "inalienable" means "unable to be taken away or given away". "Endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights", means "endowed by their creator with rights which can't be taken away or given away. They can't even be taken away by a vote.

I'm not posting on this thread any more. Have a good day folks...

I still think that "marriage", gay OR straight, is none of the government's business. If any couple wants to get married, thats their business. When it BECOMES the government's business is the sharing of assets, power of attorney, custody, etc. that goes with that. As such, I don't like that the government recognizes ANY form of marriage as anything more than a contract between two people. If the people involved in such a contract are also married, good for them.

EDIT: and it's about time! I wonder when the majority of states will have these silly discriminatory laws gone... it'll probably take a generation or two sadly. Hell there are still people around IN MY EXTENDED FAMILY who say they'd never vote for a black guy...

Judges are there (and unelected) specifically to serve as a balance to the executive and legislative branches of government, and quibbling over the terminology of whether "define" or "interpret" is a bull semantics debate (was the Supreme Court "interpreting" the right to segregation in the 1890s with Plessy v. Ferguson, or "defining" it?). By AROCES's logic, the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was bad because "unelected judges" interpreted the Constitution as to prevent segregation on racial criteria that struck down a whole host of discriminatory laws passed by racist a****** legislators elected by an extremely racist population, and resulted in a whole host of societal turmoil.

Which raises the question, AROCES - do you dispute the above example, which co-incidentally shows exactly what you are condemning (judges overruling legislatural law)? If that's the case, then do you believe that it is fair for an elected government to outright trample on the civil rights of a minority segment of its population if that's what the majority of the voting populace want?

No doubt some of you would argue that the Court was simply enforcing a right in the Constitution, as guaranteed in the 14th and 15th Amendments. This doesn't change the fact that the Brown decision did overwrite a whole host of legislatural laws. Moreover, the Constitution says nothing specifically about a gender requirement for marriage, meaning that legislatural laws will define it, which (if you accept the Brown decision) can be overriden by an interpretation of the law by the Court or courts.

I find it in equal measures troubling and amusing that Aroces seems to equate fully "improper function of government" with "things I don't like".

--Jaylemurph

In fact, each of the seven justices involved in yesterday’s decision were approved by California voters by overwhelming margins:

- Justice Joyce L. Kennard confirmed in 2006 with 74.5% of the vote.
- Justice Carol A. Corrigan confirmed in 2006 with 74.4% of the vote.
- Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar confirmed in 2002 with 74.1% of the vote.
- Justice Carlos R. Moreno confirmed in 2002 with 72.6% of the vote.
- Justice Marvin R. Baxter confirmed in 2002 with 71.5% of the vote.
- Justice Ronald M. George confirmed in 1998 with 75.5% of the vote.
- Justice Ming William Chin confirmed in 1998 with 69.3% of the vote.

You can quibble over semantics of the word "elect" vs "confirm/approve" all you want.

It could have gone the other way around, right? And would you have honored the Judges then?
My point is Judges should not cross the line and just do what they are suppose to be doing, Interpret the law and not legislate or create it.

Are you saying then you like everything?

You are pulling an oral sex is not sex.
Judges are appointed and then confirmed. No one elected any Judges for there was no choice between 2 candidate for Judges when they get confirmed.
Don't tell me you still don't get it.

Then why don't they edit all instances of the words liberty and freedom out of all their documents? Banning things arbitrarily doesn't make a law and order system. How do sodomy laws make the country safer? It takes place in private between two consenting adults, why were there laws for it? Do they need to make up BS laws just so they have enough? How about we start with murder, theft and sexual assault then work our way up to laws that we actually need, that would be a system that could actually pride itself on liberty.

Their ruling went against 37 million Californians?

Please

Actually, their ruling coincided with my views, but whatever--lump me into your grand generalization despite the fact being that many Californians were thrilled by their decision. (Are you aware that Los Angeles county is more populous than 42 other states? It's a pretty liberal place. I know--I lived there. And that's not counting the Bay Area. Also liberal. You could say entire states' worths of people are thrilled by the decision, but you won't, of course.)

I live in the central valley (currently), which is very conservative, and no one cares. It's California.

Nope.

I can't stand burnt toast. I loathe bus station: terrible places full of lost luggage and lost souls.

--Jaylemurph

I can't stand the fact Congress has drug it's feet on pressing charges against Bushco for a host of illegalities and stupidities . like the Iraq war , like wiretapping , like torture , like lying , like misuse of funds ,........ we could be here all day.

Actually a society is built by a group of people living in a certain standard or guidelines that they try to live by. Not really do whatever as long as no one kills anyone.

You still don't get it do you? There are no illegalities for if there was, what better way to bring down Bush, right?
It's you who been lied to by the Anti Bush, making you believe that he has been a criminal.

Alright, you don't like numbers then 61% of California voters, voted for Proposition 22 that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Better?
You saw on TV those that were thrilled by it, of course on TV it looks many.

How does me pointing out your numbers were wrong translate to, "Alright, you don't like numbers"...?

I think that actually shows I have a concern for the numbers, where as you just made a broad generalization. 61% of California voters is not the entire population of California. You seemed to think it was.

And don't tell me I am merely commenting by what I saw on T.V. I haven't watched any news coverage of it on T.V.

I live here. Do you?

Ug..

The Constitution of California states that all of its citizens are equal. There are no exceptions. The vote to ban gay marriage was in effect changing the constitution. Something it was NOT intended to do.. there are different methods of changing the constitution of a state. In effect.. the judges where correcting the mistake of the people.. not allowing them to change the constitution directly without using the necessary procedures. I'm sure someone will attempt to change the constitution directly.. but it can NOT be done by a mere majority vote, and the judges made sure it wasn't. They did their job.. protected the Constitution of California. Something I hope people can understand. Its sad you do not AROCES.

The entire population of any region or country will never all vote. So you count those who gave their say and voted, right?
Then how do you know there were plenty?????????

You know that freedom in the US is built also on the idea that the majority doesn't screw the minority... Everybody is equal and should have the same rights as others. Why the ban was found to be unconstitutional because it would infringe on the rights of the minority without good reasoning.

The majority also has to follow the constitution as well.

It has got nothing to do with being a minority, that is the same as bringing up the race card as a tool.
The people made a decision on Proposition 22 and 4 appointed guys in black robe out of 7 threw away the peoples decision.

So you're ticked that the judges are following the idea of freedom for all? That seems a bit odd. As I stated earlier freedom is for all... Regardless of group size.

As an example here, freedom of religion... Even the smallest ones are protected because the idea for freedom for all as the founders intended it included freedom of religion so that no majoirty could start making demands and destroy other religions like they fled from in England.

That freedom also applies to all areas of our nation.

I corrected you by stating it was not 37 million Californians...it's not even close to 37 million. You made a statement based on a ridiculously false generalization and tried to pass it off as a fact. I'm not sure why you are trying to argue.

Apparently I paid more attention to the numbers you gave than you did.

Alright, forget the 37 million.
The fact is Proposition 22 passed.

Many laws pass that are later to be found unconstitutional and undone... Are you now argueing that because a bill becomes law it should be written in stone regardless of our constitution?

Nope, I am simply not in favor of Judges having the power to overturn the will of the people.

Even if it means that the bill would be unconstitutional?

It became constitutional when the people voted for it. If it is not constitutional there should not even be a vote, right?

Not a very good arguement... Considering many laws are passed and then later overturned on the basis of being unconstitutional. They did a review of the ban and found it to be such.

You just can't ignore the rights of a group of people because the majority voted against it. It's why we even bothered to have a constitution in the first place.

Okay, I can respect that.

Obviously you're right: It did pass. However, as Kratos has said, judges are upholding certain ideals when they make such rulings as rejecting the gay marriage ban. For me, I agree with their reasoning. Others obviously don't.

My point was the four judges are not going against the will of the entire state of California, and do have a specific reason for ruling the way they did; Kratos has stated that reasoning clearly.

Who makes the law or Constitution?
And why is it that our lawmakers vote on a bill or law that judges have the power to throw out BASE ON THEIR INTERPRETATION OR UNDERSTANDING of the bill.
Why bother voting on it and not just ask judges next time???
You folks are having the judges as your best ally for now to go against the will of the people and this will bite you back sooner or later.

Then why bother voting and not just present them to the Supreme cout for approval.

The lawmakers and people do. But it doesn't give way to run wild with any old idea. The laws still have to match up to the values of freedom regardless.

Checks and balances are actually a good thing...

Click to view attachment


few think it will matter as an issue for November.

Nope, we have given Judges ultimate power to satisfy certain group or people. That is my concern here, judges are ruling now base on their own belief and not interpreting the law anymore.

Gee, you surely live a life guided by Polls.
What if the Supreme Court over rule that Poll and say it is unconstitutional?

The vote passed on a bill, not on an amendment! Changing the constitution as they where trying to do would have required an amendment to the Constitution of California. The bill they tried to pass went against the constitution.

When they try to amend the constitution and fail because some judge says "Oh it ain't fair" THEN you can whine about them abusing power, but they where doing exactly what they where hired to do, defend the constitution.

This is my understanding too. The California Supreme Court struck the ban down because it was unconstitutional. A majority vote does not void the Constitution.

Most of the judges were appointed by conservatives. The judges probably don't personally approve of gay marriage. Their ruling says that gay marriage is constitutional, not that it's good.

hey you were the one nit picking about what 'most' people wanted - so I gave you a poll. can't help it if it isn't to your liking. And that was the Supreme Court that ruled.


Did the California Supreme Court make the correct decision?

74.2 % Yes

25.8 % No



37855 total responses

LA Times poll

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ga...?vote38891433=1

to change the state constitution ?

Each of the two state legislatures have to approve the amendment with a 2/3 majority, and this must be followed by a popular vote where only a simple majority is required.

Really? there is when I vote. Maybe in Arocesland there is not.

Doesn't matter because it goes against the state and federal constitution. If they really want to change it, they can make an amendment. It will lose though.

Then again you are completely against the judicial branch, because that is exactly what they have to do when the "Will of people" goes against the constitution. So again you are wanting a fascist government in Arocesland.

Oh my God. Where did you go to school?!!! No it does not.