Seven million people don't count

1. 59

   tirelesstravelerposted 11 years ago

   Regardless of what side of the SCOTUS decisions you wanted; does it bother anyone besides me that seven million people voted in California and 5 SCOTUS justices said,"They don't count". Justice Kennedy even said they were,"Haters". To lump seven million people into one group appears somewhat judgmental for a supposedly non biased, non political judge..
   There were six million Jews killed during the Holocaust, they apparently didn't count either.  Does it cause anyone concern that the  Governor of California, who was the Attorney General of the state in 2008, refused to even entertain the rights of seven million people who voted in the election,
   Is it good for any of us if government randomly picks and chooses what laws to enforce?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Who are you to question the budding aristocracy?

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Legal challenges of new legislation are an essential part to any democracy. They are used by both sides (ie.the Obamacare supreme court case).
      
      The truth is conservatives have absolutely no right to complain here without being total hypocrites since they make regular legal and constitutional challenges to democratic decisions.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         These weren't necessarily conservative people who voted. There aren't many conservatives in California. Definitely not 7 million.  Wish your comment were true.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Conservatives or not it doesn't really matter, it's still a fundamental part of any democracy and one used by both sides to test the legality of laws as well it should be.
            
            For example democratic laws don;t surpass the constitution and SHOULD not surpass the constitution.

            replyreport
2. 76

   psycheskinnerposted 11 years ago

   Some sources would be nice.  Because I have trouble picturing a judge saying that. I Googled and could not find any such quote.

   replyreport
   1. 46

      Ericdierkerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The "they don't count" is accurate because the ruling made the statute irrelevant, But I think the "haters" quote is completely wrong and irresponsible and should be retracted. I challenge anyone to find someone who quoted Justice Stevens as using that word. Shameful forum post --- Unless I am wrong,,,, then I am very concerned.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You are completely correct in asking for them, on it.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         The reading is fascinating.  Going to take some time.

         replyreport
3. 74

   Mighty Momposted 11 years ago

   Here's a post-election analysis (one of many) that explains some of the rather confusing
   phenomena of the Prop 8 vote in 2010.
   No meant yes, yes meant no.
   Fear and misinformation ruled the airwaves.
   http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/03 … e-20100803

   replyreport
   1. 59

      tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The point of this forum is not what Prop 8 was about.  The point is 5 judges determined seven million people went to the polls and voted  but their votes didn't count. 
      Really, seven million people were intimidated and fearful.  Seven million is what we are talking about here.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         No, 5 judges determined that the writer of Prop 8 included language and rules that violated other, higher law.  How many voted, or what their votes were is immaterial and not considered by the judges at all.  Only the validity of the proposed law under already existing law.
         
         It is not the task of the SCOTUS to say that a small percentage of voters in California may violate the constitution because they don't like it and they (correctly) did not do so.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Who is higher law? If the people can make a decision and a few people can decide their vote is invalid who is really the law.
            Your correct,ultimately SCOTUS didn't make the decision,  they reinforced the corrupt politics that did.  Jerry Brown, who at the time was attorney general refused to defend the peoples decision when activists brought the suit against the state concerning prop 8.  A Federal judge said 8 was unconstitutional.  He is slightly biased, since he himself is gay.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               The Supreme Court is in place to keep the general population's politics in check.
               
               Now, remind me, who was it that ruled Segregation unconstitutional, again?

               replyreport
            2. 89

               wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Surprised you don't know that - I would have thought everyone understood that the US Constitution is the highest law in the land.
               
               Who is the law?  The people of the US.  You don't like the constitution, and can find enough people that agree with you, it will be changed.
               
               Looks like the gay judge, biased or not, was right.  The highest court in the land agrees with his legal opinion.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  +1

                  replyreport
               2. 59

                  tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  This isn't about whose right or wrong.  This totally annihilates the voting process in California. If courts make the laws, why bother to vote.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     "But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." — Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823
                     
                     Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/07/are … z2Xzw8Psiu

                     replyreport
                  2. 61

                     Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     That is like saying if the constitution makes the law why bother voting?
                     
                     There are constitutional laws on what the government can do, one thing they can't do is discriminate hence the supreme court decision.
                     
                     Do you want to get rid of the constitution? If you don't then you are arguing against yourself.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Who said anything about getting rid of the constitution?
                        Do you have a copy?  I have been reading it and re reading it this week coming up to Independence Day, Nowhere is it written courts can make laws, only congress can.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Do you really not understand this or are you just pretending not to?
                           
                           The supreme court is there to interpret the constitution, they interpreted that the constitution bans discrimination of this sort. It's not democratic it's legal, now either you support legal precedence over immediate democracy (and hence the idea of a constitution) in which case you should be fine with this process even if you disagree with the decision or you believe only in direct democracy and thus should want the abolition of undemocratic infringements like the constitution.
                           
                           You cannot have it both ways.
                           
                           It's decision time, no more hypocrisy, does democracy come first and hence we can have no constitution or does the law sometimes override democracy in which case the process you are complaining about is totally fine.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Where does the constitution forbid discrimination?

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 There is a whole majority opinion from SCOTUS if you don't understand why they made the decision and on what constitutional basis. But that is irrelevant to the point you are making here. Now yous till haven't answered the question and it reeks of hypocrisy do you think that by the constitution the Supreme Court should be able to overturn democratic laws (in which case this whole process is fine) or do you think that democracy overrides that and hence we should discard the constitution.
                                 
                                 Again, you can't have it both ways.

                                 replyreport
                              2. 61

                                 Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 BTW: It's the equal protection clause in the fourteenth amendment.
                                 The same one that was used to overturn segregation.

                                 replyreport
                        2. 0

                           Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Bingo!
                           That's what the Courts are trying to do-----------make laws, and change laws that were already made.  They're butting in where they have no business, no Constitutional right.

                           replyreport
                  3. 89

                     wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     But courts didn't make the law you're griping about; people did, 200 years ago.  Now a handful wish to violate those laws, but it takes far more than a handful to get those laws changed.
                     
                     So get enough people together in agreement and you can remove the parts of the Constitution - until then we're all stuck with it.  Either live within the laws, change them or leave.  The people of the US have declared that no one is exempt from them, whether you wish to be or not.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        7 million people voted in California and were told because your attorney general won't defend what you voted for your vote doesn't count.  Am I confused, Is 7 million really an insignificant number of people?

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           In California? Yes. Their population is 30 million.

                           replyreport
                        2. 89

                           wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Made sense to me - that a group of people wish to violate the constitution is no reason for the attorney general to defend such an action.  His job is actually to enforce the law, not encourage or support violating it.
                           
                           And yes, 7 million voters is insignificant.  7 million people wanting to violate the constitution is about 2% of the population of the US population that lives under that law and that's pretty insignificant.

                           replyreport
                           1. 76

                              psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Universal suffrage, the end of slavery, many things would not have passed a vote when they happened.  Does that make them wrong?

                              replyreport
                              1. 89

                                 wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Sometimes the majority has to be drug kicking and screaming to comply with the law, true, but all the complaining in the world won't make it right OR legal. 
                                 
                                 Our constitution was designed, in part, to protect the minority and not give total power to a majority.  The current uprising to repress a minority is running afoul of those protections and is quite wrong both morally and legally.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    +1

                                    replyreport
                        3. 61

                           Josakposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Just like if the majority voted to suspend freedom of speech. That would be overturned in the supreme court. You have had this explained to you from every angle, you just don't have an argument here.
                           
                           Unless your argument is you don;t believe in a constitution. In which case argue that, what you are doing is just endlessly hypocritical.

                           replyreport