Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[Unchecked Expansion]

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

The other Judge's are reviewing it. That's how it works.

[Ryadn]

Susan Bolton & now this crazy Judge?

A single Judge should not have this kind of power. All these laws should continue until this single Judge can get the other judges needed for a majority to agree with him / her. If that judge is unable to do so, then this type of Judicial Authority should be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm sure it is. I can't imagine that the Founding Fathers would've set up a Judicial System granting a single individual to turn over a popular vote. Definitely not, the entire Bench would have to make this kind of motion to overturn a law, not a single Judge.

Gotta go pick up a law book again, I have a feeling this judge as well as Ms. Bolton should be impeached for over-reaching their authority, and of course any executive powers that are accomplises should like wise lose their jobs as well.

...I feel like someone just made the argument that capital punishment is unconstitutional because it's cruel and unusual punishment, and you argued that didn't apply because vegetarians don't even *eat* chicken.

[Farnhamia]

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 don't approve. Well, luckily, no one asked you. The United States' system of justice is working as designed (and which design you show an abysmal lack of understanding). That you don't approve is, frankly, immaterial.

[Ryadn]

I guess. It's interesting, though, that there hasn't been a huge, fiery eruption from the GOP on this. Some have spoken out but I haven't seen Boehner and McConnell ranting and yelling "No you can't!" The Newt's said something, I believe, but he's not the guy you want defending the sanctity of marriage, and the usual suspects from Focus on the Family, but otherwise it's been mostly silence. Rachel Maddow did a piece on this last night. Very interesting.

If we're lucky, they'll keep their traps shut permanently and not remind the vast population of chimps that watch FAUX News that it's once again time to rig votes in California. But I digress.

Give 'em some time... And if not, I'll bet they'll give Zephie a job.

Maddow suggested that it could be because the Tea Party isn't as socially conservative as the religious right, and that the power base in the GOP has shifted away from the religious right. Their high point was making Congress stop what it was doing and actually intervene in a very sad family matter, the Terry Schiavo case, giving us the spectacle of Senators diagnosing that poor woman via a TV feed. Interesting times, eh?

Am I the only one here who would totally do Maddow if she talked politics to me?

[The Black Forrest]

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.

Indeed. The plan is simple. Repeat it long enough until everybody starts believing it.

[Ryadn]

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

Your satire is very... well... I'm fairly sure satire is supposed to have a point.

[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

Your satire is very... well... I'm fairly sure satire is supposed to have a point.

My satire totally has a point! It involves King Kong, several tons of flax, ... shit... I've told you too much already.

[Zeppy]

Am I the only one here who would totally do Maddow if she talked politics to me?

It comes with the Rhodes Scholar territory.

[Tekania]

If a single rogue Judge can strike down and suspend laws without a peer review

They can't... the review is handled via the appeals process. If his peers in the appeals court agree with him either by affirming his decision, or by refusing to hear the case because the appeal lacks merit, then it's over till the legislature acts again.

[Our Constitution]

I question your taste in women. Have you seen that woman? She's uglier than Janet Reno!

[Tekania]

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.

The judiciary has fucked no one. It was voters raping people, which the judiciary checked.

[Ashmoria]

I guess. It's interesting, though, that there hasn't been a huge, fiery eruption from the GOP on this. Some have spoken out but I haven't seen Boehner and McConnell ranting and yelling "No you can't!" The Newt's said something, I believe, but he's not the guy you want defending the sanctity of marriage, and the usual suspects from Focus on the Family, but otherwise it's been mostly silence. Rachel Maddow did a piece on this last night. Very interesting.

If we're lucky, they'll keep their traps shut permanently and not remind the vast population of chimps that watch FAUX News that it's once again time to rig votes in California. But I digress.

Give 'em some time... And if not, I'll bet they'll give Zephie a job.

Maddow suggested that it could be because the Tea Party isn't as socially conservative as the religious right, and that the power base in the GOP has shifted away from the religious right. Their high point was making Congress stop what it was doing and actually intervene in a very sad family matter, the Terry Schiavo case, giving us the spectacle of Senators diagnosing that poor woman via a TV feed. Interesting times, eh?

Am I the only one here who would totally do Maddow if she talked politics to me?

i am very straight and i would.

[Ashmoria]

I question your taste in women. Have you seen that woman? She's uglier than Janet Reno!

wow you are no better a judge of women than you are a judge of the constitution.

[Tekania]

Susan Bolton & now this crazy Judge?

A single Judge should not have this kind of power. All these laws should continue until this single Judge can get the other judges needed for a majority to agree with him / her. If that judge is unable to do so, then this type of Judicial Authority should be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm sure it is. I can't imagine that the Founding Fathers would've set up a Judicial System granting a single individual to turn over a popular vote. Definitely not, the entire Bench would have to make this kind of motion to overturn a law, not a single Judge.

Gotta go pick up a law book again, I have a feeling this judge as well as Ms. Bolton should be impeached for over-reaching their authority, and of course any executive powers that are accomplises should like wise lose their jobs as well.

...I feel like someone just made the argument that capital punishment is unconstitutional because it's cruel and unusual punishment, and you argued that didn't apply because vegetarians don't even *eat* chicken.

That is a bad comparison... yours makes too much sense.

[The Black Forrest]

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

Your satire is very... well... I'm fairly sure satire is supposed to have a point.

My satire totally has a point! It involves King Kong, several tons of flax, ... shit... I've told you too much already.

Well?

It kind of fails if you have to explain it......

[Neo Art]

Susan Bolton & now this crazy Judge?

A single Judge should not have this kind of power. All these laws should continue until this single Judge can get the other judges needed for a majority to agree with him / her. If that judge is unable to do so, then this type of Judicial Authority should be unconstitutional. In fact, I'm sure it is. I can't imagine that the Founding Fathers would've set up a Judicial System granting a single individual to turn over a popular vote. Definitely not, the entire Bench would have to make this kind of motion to overturn a law, not a single Judge.

Gotta go pick up a law book again, I have a feeling this judge as well as Ms. Bolton should be impeached for over-reaching their authority, and of course any executive powers that are accomplises should like wise lose their jobs as well.

...I feel like someone just made the argument that capital punishment is unconstitutional because it's cruel and unusual punishment, and you argued that didn't apply because vegetarians don't even *eat* chicken.

It reminds me a bit of Pinky and the Brain.

I think so, Brain, but what if the hippopotamus won't wear the beach thong?

[Our Constitution]

If a single rogue Judge can strike down and suspend laws without a peer review

They can't... the review is handled via the appeals process. If his peers in the appeals court agree with him either by affirming his decision, or by refusing to hear the case because the appeal lacks merit, then it's over till the legislature acts again.

Because the appeal lacks merit? You see! This is the whole problem with the process! It should be the Judge's job to prove that the law is unconstitutional and gain the support of the other Justices to make this an action of the Judicial Branch.

Checking the power of the Legislative is a JUDICIAL BRANCH action and should require consent of the Judicial Branch before they make these motions to screw over The Voters.

Power to the People!!!!

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Whoa whoa whoa. You dumb biznitches shut your snatches.

I'm sure you think this a terribly amusing intro to your argument, but given your record so far, I think you'd best stick to safer methods of trying to be funny. Between this and getting personal with your 'taste in women' comment, you're toeing the line.

[Our Constitution]

Whoa whoa whoa. You dumb biznitches shut your snatches.

I'm sure you think this a terribly amusing intro to your argument, but given your record so far, I think you'd best stick to safer methods of trying to be funny. Between this and getting personal with your 'taste in women' comment, you're toeing the line.

Ah dang, a Janet Reno fan. HaHa, my high school teacher and next door neighbor is really good friends with Janet Reno & Jimmy Carter. You should have seen their faces when I told our former Pres about how much I question is decision on the Panama Canal. He got soooo mad I thought the blood vessels in his head were going to pop.

[The Voltania]

After this gets carried over to the Supreme Court, the decision on gay marriage will be final. It will be Gaynarok.

[Zeppy]

Power to the People!!!!

Fuck direct democracy.

[Our Constitution]

After this gets carried over to the Supreme Court, the decision on gay marriage will be final. It will be Gaynarok.

Next Stop: Beastiality! Oh yeah!!

[The Voltania]

Power to the People!!!!

Fuck direct democracy.

Same here.

[The Voltania]

After this gets carried over to the Supreme Court, the decision on gay marriage will be final. It will be Gaynarok.

Next Stop: Beastiality! Oh yeah!! Can't wait to wed a goatfucker.

Lern 2 Englis.

[Dyakovo]

After this gets carried over to the Supreme Court, the decision on gay marriage will be final. It will be Gaynarok.

Next Stop: Beastiality! Oh yeah!!

Right, because marriage between two adults who happen to be the same gender is just like having sex with an animal...