Ca court overrules voters???

Teak · #41 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wow

I would like a law that states all beautiful, blonde haired women that are taller than 5'7" be ordered to be my sex slave for life.

The people made their decision. What part of that do you not understand?

What part of UNCONSTITUTIONAL do you not understand?

The people made a decision about slavery, back in the 1700 as well. They also made decisions prohibiting interracial marriages, they made decisions about "separate but equal" facilities. There have been a number of decisions that were made, but were not in accordance with (1) the constitution and (2) any code real ethics.

These restrictions, on same sex couples, will go the same way as slavery, separate but equal, and restrictions on mixed marriages. ACCEPT IT.

PPark · #42 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluedog

And that is supposed to prove what? Mr. Reagan appointed people to the US Supreme Court that was "anything" but upholding to his personal ideologies. Your obvious "political bigotry" shows that you believe that "Judges" are supposed to toe the "political line" instead of performing their "constitutional mandated duty" of merely "arbitrating" any impasse of the law by drawing their powers of "judicial review" from the "guaranteed" rights contained in the US Constitution and or the following amendments thereof. Any Judge's personal ideologies should have no bearing whatsoever upon the decision making process of judicial review. And if no breech of any rights contained in the Constitution is found evident, ALL REMAINING WORDING ARE THE SOLE PROPERTIES OF THE "STATES/WE THE PEOPLE"....according to the 10th article of our BILL OF RIGHTS, which continues to be ignored time and time again as "NEW LAW" is opined from the bench at any "whim" of agreement to these APPOINTED JUDGES, solely by the "self professed" power of "IMAGINED" authority by these little legal dictators. BD

Evidently you missed the point. These judges followed precedent and their state's constitution and arrived at a decision, e.g. they did the job they were appointed to do.

I'm sure you can answer this. The state constitution is a product of...?
[HINT] the answer is within your first line of bold type.

toxic · #43 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 03:02 PM

Why do you think that throwing out a poorly written law banning gay marriage, automatically makes it legal?

When a appeals court overturns a law, it is basically saying "you fked up, try again".

Realist1 · #44 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toxic

Why do you think that throwing out a poorly written law banning gay marriage, automatically makes it legal?

When a appeals court overturns a law, it is basically saying "you fked up, try again".

I think all homosexuals should band together,,,whatever they claim to be,,, and leave the rest of us alone.

I've no problem with the mentally/genetic/ social defects ending their combined existence as a useless endevour..

Just keep all your diseases to yourself.

Thank you.

PPark · #45 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toxic

Why do you think that throwing out a poorly written law banning gay marriage, automatically makes it legal?

When a appeals court overturns a law, it is basically saying "you fked up, try again".

What appeals court are you referencing?

Tileman · #46 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 03:36 PM

I really look forward to seeing if the petitioners do get another vote on a state constitutional ammendment forcing the state supreme court to be humiliated. Honestly, in a place like California I am shocked it was a 4-3 decision. I would've expected a 7-0 in that state.

Realist1 · #47 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tileman

I really look forward to seeing if the petitioners do get another vote on a state constitutional ammendment forcing the state supreme court to be humiliated. Honestly, in a place like California I am shocked it was a 4-3 decision. I would've expected a 7-0 in that state.

I'm waiting for the "Big One' to hit in Frisco...and watch how the 70% of all new A.I.D.S cases diagnosed homosexuals in the entire United States deal with it.

Think about it. 70% of the homosexual population of Frisco still insists on infecting itself...

While "demanding " the right to marry its dieased counterpart.

True Liberals, to the End.

Suburbanite · #48 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 04:52 PM

I'm as pro-gay rights as the next guy but these judges are a bunch of fucking hack retard cunt licking shit bags for thinking they have access to some sort of higher authority, some sort of privileged information... yes this vote was bullshit and harmful to society as a whole, but these judges frighten me, and make me wonder what else they would just overturn casually.

wow · #49 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toxic

Why do you think that throwing out a poorly written law banning gay marriage, automatically makes it legal?

When a appeals court overturns a law, it is basically saying "you fked up, try again".

Judges are affiliated with political parties, they are humans and they give opinions based on their own personal prejudicies.
This is why Judges should not have the authority to overrule the vote of the American people.

wow · #50 (**permalink**) 05-16-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Realist1

I think all homosexuals should band together,,,whatever they claim to be,,, and leave the rest of us alone.

I've no problem with the mentally/genetic/ social defects ending their combined existence as a useless endevour..

Just keep all your diseases to yourself.

Thank you.

San Franfreako can be the Homo epicenter of the USA.
The District of Gayness.