Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Buffett and Colbert]

I'm 2/3rds a lawyer. Does that count?

What the fuck does that even mean?

In Canada, you don't get to call yourself a lawyer unless you've actually passed the Bar. In fact, you can be disbarred before you ever get barred for passing yourself off as any sort of lawyer, when you aren't.

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment which does not constitute practice without a license under the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct or under relevant Minnesota law as it makes clear to the reasonable reader that I am not and am not purporting to be licensed to practice law in the State of Minnesota or in any other jurisdiction. Relax a bit. It's just a law school joke.

I am a third year law student. I am also a certified student attorney under Minnesota's student practice rule. That means the Supreme Court of Minnesota has certified me competent to practice law, including first chairing litigation, provided that I am assisted and supervised by a member of the Minnesota Bar. I have, of course, only done so a handful of times on relatively petty matters. Real student practice rules don't work like the one in Legally Blond. Most of my relevant work experience is as a legal researcher in several fields including, more pertinently, sexual orientation and the law.

That was too much effort and explaining for a cheesy joke. Back to the topic...

I've decided I like you. You can never have enough lawyers in the house.

[Grave_n_idle]

You can never have enough lawyers in the house.

Words I'd never imagined I'd hear...

[Conserative Morality]

You can never have enough lawyers in the house.

Don't you know? There can only be one... *cues Highlander theme*

[Lackadaisical2]

I've been on F7 too much, I thought it said 900 pages...

OT: I can't really say I'm happy, as this doesn't affect me at all, but I do believe that gays should have the 'right to marry', although it'd be even more preferable to get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

[Conserative Morality]

I've been on F7 too much, I thought it said 900 pages...

OT: I can't really say I'm happy, as this doesn't affect me at all, but I do believe that gays should have the 'right to marry', although it'd be even more preferable to get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

Alright then, here. You get to rewrite the tax code to fit married couples without punishing them or single people specifically. Have fun!

[Dempublicents1]

Alright then, here. You get to rewrite the tax code to fit married couples without punishing them or single people specifically. Have fun!

The tax code already does that. The "married, filing jointly" progression fairly evenly matches a doubling of the single progression. It's not perfect, of course, since both partners won't always make the same amount. This means that some married couples end up paying less and some end up paying more when filing jointly than they would singly. But, overall, there's no "punishment" for being married or for being single in the tax code.

[Tekania]

Its Tyranny and for proof, allow me to show what our Founding Fathers thought of such abuses of power:

Declaration of Independence: He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them

Ironically enough the "he" in context of this ruling is actually the US Constitution.

[Pope Joan]

Whoa.

It is going to take a lot of LDS cash to undo this.

Their family friendly sound-bite messages might have to put more teeth in their bite.

God how I despise those hypocrites.

They sided with the gays in a housing dispute in Salt Lake City, "Hey look; we're not bigots!"

Eight million dollars in California says you are.

[The Rich Port]

TCT, I agree with the person who said that reading your posts is like having really good sex.

I'm telling ya: he deserves SOMETHING. But I think he's/she's too modest...

[Grave_n_idle]

TCT, I agree with the person who said that reading your posts is like having really good sex.

Ah, It's all so clear now, I had it backwards.

I had sex with one of TCT's posts, and it was like reading.

Boy, is my face red.

[Tahar Joblis]

Since nobody seems to have mentioned it yet, I'll point out that the Republican governor of California, along with his attorney general, have filed against the stay.

I expect that means FOX will say that Schwarzenegger is not a real Republican, and it might somewhat increase the odds that no stay is issued.

[Ashmoria]

Since nobody seems to have mentioned it yet, I'll point out that the Republican governor of California, along with his attorney general, have filed against the stay.

I expect that means FOX will say that Schwarzenegger is not a real Republican, and it might somewhat increase the odds that no stay is issued.

they both refused to participate in the defense of prop8 so its not much of a surprise that they would oppose the stay.

im only cautious because of what might happen to married couples if the supreme court rule prop8 to be constitutional.

[Buffett and Colbert]

im only cautious because of what might happen to married couples if the supreme court rule prop8 to be constitutional.

Err... what would happen?

[Neo Art]

They'd be very suddenly unmarried.

[Ashmoria]

im only cautious because of what might happen to married couples if the supreme court rule prop8 to be constitutional.

Err... what would happen?

it seems to me that if prop8 isnt overruled that every same sex couple who gets married between now and when the supreme court finds it constutional could easily be immediately "unmarried"

that prospect horrifies me.

[Buffett and Colbert]

im only cautious because of what might happen to married couples if the supreme court rule prop8 to be constitutional.

Err... what would happen?

it seems to me that if prop8 isnt overruled that every same sex couple who gets married between now and when the supreme court finds it constutional could easily be immediately "unmarried"

that prospect horrifies me.

Ack, I read your post wrong. I read it as if you said unconstitutional.

[Ashmoria]

im only cautious because of what might happen to married couples if the supreme court rule prop8 to be constitutional.

Err... what would happen?

it seems to me that if prop8 isnt overruled that every same sex couple who gets married between now and when the supreme court finds it constutional could easily be immediately "unmarried"

that prospect horrifies me.

Ack, I read your post wrong. I read it as if you said unconstitutional.

oh if its ruled UNconstitutional its the end of civilization as we know it.

[Our Constitution]

Whoa whoa whoa. You dumb biznitches shut your snatches. If there is one thing I love most about the Constitution its called The Amendment Process & Checks & Balances. Now when the heck did the Judicial Branch get the ability to completely usurp the Legislative Branch and turn the Executive Branch into its punk-ass poodle?

No one, myself included, ever said anything about the Judicial Branch not having this authority. Its a great way to maintain Checks & Balances.

The issue in question here is how the Judicial Branch exercises this authority. If a single rogue Judge can strike down and suspend laws without a peer review having occurred first then that's just shoddy administration. The Judicial Branch needs to reign in its own and stop giving so much authority to rogue individuals.

Again, how come this particular Judge had to strike down the Law? What was the agenda? This power smells of rank abuse, always has, always will. How come none of the other Judges bothered to strike it down? How do we know other Judges didn't look at this first? Is this Judge claiming to be SMARTER than the other Judges who didn't strike it down?

No, I'm all for the Judicial Branch having this authority, however there should be some sort of mechanism for this exercise of power. This Judge should have to appeal to have this hearing first. Judge XYZ vs. California Prop 8. Then, the Judge would have to abstain from voting on the case and leave it to the other Judges of that District Bench to rule majority one way or the other before the Judicial Branch can challenge the Authority of the Legislative Branch.

Who are the Co-Signers on this injunction? Why shouldn't I just bitch-slap this judge and piss on his/her face?

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

There is supposed to be a system of Checks & Balances. Who the hell made the Judicial Branch KING of the 3 branches of Government? No one that I can recall. The Articles t

This is ripe for abuse. It is very odd indeed that the Mechanism for which the Judicial Branch exercises this authority is just one random judge saying "nope, this is unconstitutional."

Man, fuck the police. Tax-Collecting IRS Agents that shake down motorists for money to fund their retirement thats all I see out of the Judicial-Executive Complex.

[Grave_n_idle]

Whoa whoa whoa. You dumb biznitches shut your snatches. If there is one thing I love most about the Constitution its called The Amendment Process & Checks & Balances. Now when the heck did the Judicial Branch get the ability to completely usurp the Legislative Branch and turn the Executive Branch into its punk-ass poodle?

No one, myself included, ever said anything about the Judicial Branch not having this authority. Its a great way to maintain Checks & Balances.

The issue in question here is how the Judicial Branch exercises this authority. If a single rogue Judge can strike down and suspend laws without a peer review having occurred first then that's just shoddy administration. The Judicial Branch needs to reign in its own and stop giving so much authority to rogue individuals.

Again, how come this particular Judge had to strike down the Law? What was the agenda? This power smells of rank abuse, always has, always will. How come none of the other Judges bothered to strike it down? How do we know other Judges didn't look at this first? Is this Judge claiming to be SMARTER than the other Judges who didn't strike it down?

No, I'm all for the Judicial Branch having this authority, however there should be some sort of mechanism for this exercise of power. This Judge should have to appeal to have this hearing first. Judge XYZ vs. California Prop 8. Then, the Judge would have to abstain from voting on the case and leave it to the other Judges of that District Bench to rule majority one way or the other before the Judicial Branch can challenge the Authority of the Legislative Branch.

Who are the Co-Signers on this injunction? Why shouldn't I just bitch-slap this judge and piss on his/her face?

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

There is supposed to be a system of Checks & Balances. Who the hell made the Judicial Branch KING of the 3 branches of Government? No one that I can recall. The Articles t

This is ripe for abuse. It is very odd indeed that the Mechanism for which the Judicial Branch exercises this authority is just one random judge saying "nope, this is unconstitutional."

Man, fuck the police. Tax-Collecting IRS Agents that shake down motorists for money to fund their retirement thats all I see out of the Judicial-Executive Complex.

What are you talking about. The judge, in this case, IS a check (or balance, you decide... I'm leaning towards 'check') - and is, therefore, doing exactly what you're saying should be done.

Something was going on, it was moving through the system, it was arguably un-Constitutional, the check (judge) checked it.

The machine is working... so why are you complaining?

[Buffett and Colbert]

Whoa whoa whoa. You dumb biznitches shut your snatches. If there is one thing I love most about the Constitution its called The Amendment Process & Checks & Balances. Now when the heck did the Judicial Branch get the ability to completely usurp the Legislative Branch and turn the Executive Branch into its punk-ass poodle?

In 1803.

The issue in question here is how the Judicial Branch exercises this authority. If a single rogue Judge can strike down and suspend laws without a peer review having occurred first then that's just shoddy administration. The Judicial Branch needs to reign in its own and stop giving so much authority to rogue individuals.

This is how the judicial branch was laid out by the Constitution and Federalist Papers. How much reigning in could you possibly need? Don't complain about shoddy administration, but shoddy Constitution writing.

Again, how come this particular Judge had to strike down the Law? What was the agenda? This power smells of rank abuse, always has, always will. How come none of the other Judges bothered to strike it down? How do we know other Judges didn't look at this first? Is this Judge claiming to be SMARTER than the other Judges who didn't strike it down?

He got the case because it arose within his jurisdiction. It's not a difficult concept. And Prop 8 was struck down before by a lower court, before being ordered to be upheld by a separate higher one.

No, I'm all for the Judicial Branch having this authority, however there should be some sort of mechanism for this exercise of power. This Judge should have to appeal to have this hearing first. Judge XYZ vs. California Prop 8. Then, the Judge would have to abstain from voting on the case and leave it to the other Judges of that District Bench to rule majority one way or the other before the Judicial Branch can challenge the Authority of the Legislative Branch.

1. How could a judge make a case against a piece of legistlation?
2. Why should a judge have to go through this redundant process?
3. Why are you complaining about him? He is obviously a fair judge, having been nominated by both Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

Who are the Co-Signers on this injunction? Why shouldn't I just bitch-slap this judge and piss on his/her face?

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

There is supposed to be a system of Checks & Balances. Who the hell made the Judicial Branch KING of the 3 branches of Government? No one that I can recall. The Articles t

This is ripe for abuse. It is very odd indeed that the Mechanism for which the Judicial Branch exercises this authority is just one random judge saying "nope, this is unconstitutional."

Man, fuck the police. Tax-Collecting IRS Agents that shake down motorists for money to fund their retirement thats all I see out of the Judicial-Executive Complex.[/quote]

[Our Constitution]

What are you talking about. The judge, in this case, IS a check (or balance, you decide... I'm leaning towards 'check') - and is, therefore, doing exactly what you're saying should be done.

Something was going on, it was moving through the system, it was arguably un-Constitutional, the check (judge) checked it.

The machine is working... so why are you complaining?

Whats going on, is that ONE judge acting on behalf of the ENTIRE Judicial Branch is suspect at best. I don't approve. This is about the Abuse of the Judicial Branch by Rogue Judges. Before the Legislative Branch can check the Judicial Branch a huge process of like 2/3 of the Congress has to vote, has to pass amendments, etc etc... The Judicial Branch's ability requires a single Judge's opinion on something's Constitutionality and then the Executive Branch bends over the voters and starts f'n them in the @$$ ? What kind of f'n system is THAT?

Its definitely not a JUST one.

[Ashmoria]

What are you talking about. The judge, in this case, IS a check (or balance, you decide... I'm leaning towards 'check') - and is, therefore, doing exactly what you're saying should be done.

Something was going on, it was moving through the system, it was arguably un-Constitutional, the check (judge) checked it.

The machine is working... so why are you complaining?

Whats going on, is that ONE judge acting on behalf of the ENTIRE Judicial Branch is suspect at best. I don't approve. This is about the Abuse of the Judicial Branch by Rogue Judges. Before the Legislative Branch can check the Judicial Branch a huge process of like 2/3 of the Congress has to vote, has to pass amendments, etc etc... The Judicial Branch's ability requires a single Judge's opinion on something's Constitutionality and then the Executive Branch bends over the voters and starts f'n them in the @$$ ? What kind of f'n system is THAT?

Its definitely not a JUST one.

you might want to PAY ATTENTION.

this judge gets to make a ruling then ANOTHER set of judges will review his ruling then a 3RD set of judges will make a final decision on whether or not it fits the constitution.

if the congress/people dont like that ruling they can AMMEND the constitution to make prop8 (or the sentiments there-in) constitutional.

[Grave_n_idle]

What are you talking about. The judge, in this case, IS a check (or balance, you decide... I'm leaning towards 'check') - and is, therefore, doing exactly what you're saying should be done.

Something was going on, it was moving through the system, it was arguably un-Constitutional, the check (judge) checked it.

The machine is working... so why are you complaining?

Whats going on, is that ONE judge acting on behalf of the ENTIRE Judicial Branch is suspect at best. I don't approve. This is about the Abuse of the Judicial Branch by Rogue Judges. Before the Legislative Branch can check the Judicial Branch a huge process of like 2/3 of the Congress has to vote, has to pass amendments, etc etc... The Judicial Branch's ability requires a single Judge's opinion on something's Constitutionality and then the Executive Branch bends over the voters and starts f'n them in the @$$ ? What kind of f'n system is THAT?

Its definitely not a JUST one.

It's not supposed to be. As you said, this is the 'checks and balances' part. It'd be pretty fucking retarded if you had to get 2/3 support and a majority referendum to STOP an UN-Constitutional law from being enacted.

The next stage is the appeal process, and then we get to see the same kind of distribution of power. I wonder if you'll be complaining about it if a Rogue Judge Abuses the system (what is it with the random capitalisation? You buy Upper Case type in bulk or something?) by unilaterally overturning this result?

I suspect not. I think this is your partisanship talking.

[Our Constitution]

Oh sure, if a Rogue Judge can just declare something Unconstitutional then surely another Judge can just declare it Constitutional.

Who's side do you take? We're talking about a Supreme Court which is often divided 5-4 for or against something. Should this Judge's ruling stand or should the other Judge who said it was Kosher stand? Well, guess who's decision that is? The Executive Branch! Mo-fo Cherry Pickers I say! We should get Washington back in to chop down them th'ar cherry trees ubetcha bygolly

[Ashmoria]

Oh sure, if a Rogue Judge can just declare something Unconstitutional then surely another Judge can just declare it Constitutional.

Who's side do you take? We're talking about a Supreme Court which is often divided 5-4 for or against something. Should this Judge's ruling stand or should the other Judge who said it was Kosher stand? Well, guess who's decision that is? The Executive Branch! Mo-fo Cherry Pickers I say! We should get Washington back in to chop down them th'ar cherry trees ubetcha bygolly

you are getting repetitious.