|
|
| this case is |
| a bad arguement |
|
33% |
[ 2 ] |
| the worst arguement in court history |
|
66% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 7:54 pm
In California their supreme court is about to rule prop 8 (a constitutional ammendment) that banned Gay marriage unconstitutional...realy, I mean I knew commom sense was on the decline but is it realy dead? Im all for equal rights for everyone but when the people vote a constitutional amemdment dont just go and say "well is we cannot win the majority of people support then we'll just call the consitution unconstiutional". I am for gay marriage but this is by far the most idiotic argument I have ever heard. come on California your better than this.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 25, 2009 8:15 pm
It's just expanding on judicial review, making it a true super power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twizted Humanitarian Crew
|
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 8:35 am
I would say that this truly is unconstitutional, prop 8 does step on the rights of some. This is a step that is absolutely necessary for California
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 1:18 pm
I agree that voting for prop 8 was wrong but that has to be changed via a constitutional amndment instead of just trying to go around the constitution. Prohibition was a horrible idea and a few years later a constitutional amendment fixed the problem. plus the courts ONLY job is to interpret the states constitution so once prop 8 became law they cant legaly change it unless the constitution is changed wich would take the legislature of the people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26, 2009 2:55 pm
in a 6-1 decision the ban is upheld the court did it job properly, now the prop 8 critics are saying that they'll do what they should have done earlier put it back on a ballot. once its an amendment their was nothing at all that the court could have done about it legaly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:47 pm
its just another tactic. All avenues will be employed until success is achieved, I imagine. These are goal-oriented people.
however, I don't see why a constitutional amendment that contradicts other parts of the constitution can't be subject to judicial review....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 8:23 am
I just hate how they would take it to their courts and try and make their own court system break the law by setting policy. that would have been a power grab that shatterd any form of checks and balances. thankfully they uncumpled up the constitution long enough to realive that was the wrong thing and shot it down 6-1 though it is stilly scary that even one them voted to disregard the constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 4:08 pm
Though it could be over turned if it is voted on by the people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2009 9:57 am
James628 I just hate how they would take it to their courts and try and make their own court system break the law by setting policy. that would have been a power grab that shatterd any form of checks and balances. thankfully they uncumpled up the constitution long enough to realive that was the wrong thing and shot it down 6-1 though it is stilly scary that even one them voted to disregard the constitution. The courts "make policy" all the time. its called interpretation and precedent and dates all the way back to Marburry v madison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:40 pm
mr_zoot James628 I just hate how they would take it to their courts and try and make their own court system break the law by setting policy. that would have been a power grab that shatterd any form of checks and balances. thankfully they uncumpled up the constitution long enough to realive that was the wrong thing and shot it down 6-1 though it is stilly scary that even one them voted to disregard the constitution. The courts "make policy" all the time. its called interpretation and precedent and dates all the way back to Marburry v madison. they interpret policy already made by the legislatures or in this case the people. the cases were they legislate from the bench have happend in the past but that doesent make them right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
