Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional

[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.

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!!!!

The judge doesn't "prove" anything one way or another, It's not the courts job to "prove things", courts rule on evidence (proof) provided by the defense and plaintiffs. In this case the plaintiffs provided proof that the defendants violated the US Constitution, and the judge ruled on behalf of the plaintiff because the defense was unable to provide adequate evidence otherwise... If there was a procedural issue on the Judges part it will be handled via the judicial peer review process (aka, the appellate).

[Lelouche]

Power to the People!!!!

Fuck direct democracy.

Same here.

with or without government the will of the majority is king, regardless of law

The people yearn for freedom. There is always the threat of the people against it's government, and it is always an option
Your comments have earned you a space on the list
and the Revolution will not be televised

[Our Constitution]

The judge doesn't "prove" anything one way or another, It's not the courts job to "prove things", courts rule on evidence (proof) provided by the defense and plaintiffs. In this case the plaintiffs provided proof that the defendants violated the US Constitution, and the judge ruled on behalf of the plaintiff because the defense was unable to provide adequate evidence otherwise... If there was a procedural issue on the Judges part it will be handled via the judicial peer review process (aka, the appellate).

The Law was passed and became a Constitutional Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have a right to marriage.... and they do.. they have a right to a heterosexual marriage. I see no conflict in the law here. (the again, I could care less about gays getting married, I'm more interested in abolishing this ability of the judicial to decree laws unconstitutional on the whim of a single judge)

[Dyakovo]

The judge doesn't "prove" anything one way or another, It's not the courts job to "prove things", courts rule on evidence (proof) provided by the defense and plaintiffs. In this case the plaintiffs provided proof that the defendants violated the US Constitution, and the judge ruled on behalf of the plaintiff because the defense was unable to provide adequate evidence otherwise... If there was a procedural issue on the Judges part it will be handled via the judicial peer review process (aka, the appellate).

The Law was passed and became a Constitutional Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have a right to marriage.... and they do.. they have a right to a heterosexual marriage. I see no conflict in the law here. (the again, I could care less about gays getting married, I'm more interested in abolishing this ability of the judicial to decree laws unconstitutional on the whim of a single judge)

Haven't read a single post have you?

[Our Constitution]

The judge doesn't "prove" anything one way or another, It's not the courts job to "prove things", courts rule on evidence (proof) provided by the defense and plaintiffs. In this case the plaintiffs provided proof that the defendants violated the US Constitution, and the judge ruled on behalf of the plaintiff because the defense was unable to provide adequate evidence otherwise... If there was a procedural issue on the Judges part it will be handled via the judicial peer review process (aka, the appellate).

The Law was passed and became a Constitutional Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have a right to marriage.... and they do.. they have a right to a heterosexual marriage. I see no conflict in the law here. (the again, I could care less about gays getting married, I'm more interested in abolishing this ability of the judicial to decree laws unconstitutional on the whim of a single judge)

Haven't read a single post have you?

never do! wait, what am i replying to?

[Lelouche]

The Law was passed and became a Constitutional Amendment.

No it wasn't
It became a law, only applicable to the state of California
Which as correctly ruled by this judge, is in violation of The Constitution of the United States, (article VI, Amendment 4/9/14, and the civil rights act)

For what it is worth, I actually agree with your point about judges having to much power
But I'm an Anarchist who spits on the fed, and believes the Constitution of the United States is a Statist (Fascist) tool of oppression.

[Allrule]

Power to the People!!!!

Fuck direct democracy.

[Lelouche]

Power to the People!!!!

Fuck direct democracy.

Fuck Government

[Tekania]

The judge doesn't "prove" anything one way or another, It's not the courts job to "prove things", courts rule on evidence (proof) provided by the defense and plaintiffs. In this case the plaintiffs provided proof that the defendants violated the US Constitution, and the judge ruled on behalf of the plaintiff because the defense was unable to provide adequate evidence otherwise... If there was a procedural issue on the Judges part it will be handled via the judicial peer review process (aka, the appellate).

The Law was passed and became a Constitutional Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have a right to marriage.... and they do.. they have a right to a heterosexual marriage. I see no conflict in the law here. (the again, I could care less about gays getting married, I'm more interested in abolishing this ability of the judicial to decree laws unconstitutional on the whim of a single judge)

State Constitutional Amendment.... however, state constitutions do not trump the Federal Constitution, this is a Federal Court making a determination of validity under the Federal Constitution of a measure passed into a State Constitution... There is still an available appeals process before the decision can be actually finalized however. I don't care how many people in Cali voted on something, if it's unconstituional by Federal standards, it's unconstitutional.... BTW, the constitutionality is based upon the element of due process.

[New Amerik]

Power to the People!!!!

Fuck direct democracy.

Indeed, I applaud these fascist actions that are clearly the result of judges limiting freedom while, somehow, it looks like the total opposite.

Clearly.

[Intangelon]

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?

No you are not.

[Intangelon]

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

Intelligence and the ability to speak well trumps fake tits, botox and fake tan 11 times out of 10.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

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

Intelligence and the ability to speak well trumps fake tits, botox and fake tan 11 times out of 10.

Don't forget sense of humor and a ravenous appetite for dirty dirty sex.

[Intangelon]

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

Intelligence and the ability to speak well trumps fake tits, botox and fake tan 11 times out of 10.

Don't forget sense of humor and a ravenous appetite for dirty dirty sex.

Absolutely.

And now, I'm going to log off and have sex with my lovely woman.

[Our Constitution]

I always find it absolutely hilarious how the Elected Representatives don't Represent the people who voted them into office.

Lets take a look at all the issues, lets see where The People stand and then where The Representatives stand.

Gay Marriage:
People - Against It
Officals - For it

Illegal Immigration
People - Against it
Officials - For it

Abortion
People - Against it
Officials - For it

Space Exploration
People - For it
Officials - Against it

What over-riding issue exists that keeps these officials in power despite the fact that they very rarely actually do any "representing" of their constituents?

[Grave_n_idle]

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

If it's conflicted, it's going to keep getting bounced on appeals till it reaches the highest court - where I imagine we'll get a fairly conclusive response one way or another.

And right now, while I'm sure the pro-ban people are angling for that, because they think they're going to get a universal ban and rewrite out of it... I'm not so sure that's their smartest move. It definitely could go against them. (It certainly should go against them, but upper echelon justice is currently tending toward the conservative, I think.)

[Dyakovo]

I always find it absolutely hilarious how the Elected Representatives don't Represent the people who voted them into office.

Lets take a look at all the issues, lets see where The People stand and then where The Representatives stand.

Gay Marriage:
People - Against It
Officals - For it

Illegal Immigration
People - Against it
Officials - For it

Abortion
People - Against it
Officials - For it

Space Exploration
People - For it
Officials - Against it

What over-riding issue exists that keeps these officials in power despite the fact that they very rarely actually do any "representing" of their constituents?

Source(s) for all your declarations above?

[Grave_n_idle]

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 might be tempted, but I think she's more likely to pick you.

[Ryatoria]

What over-riding issue exists that keeps these officials in power despite the fact that they very rarely actually do any "representing" of their constituents?

People secretly don't want the things they say they do want, therefore vote for people who are against what they want therefore are actually for what they want..

[Ryadn]

with or without government the will of the majority is king, regardless of law

The people yearn for freedom. There is always the threat of the people against it's government, and it is always an option
Your comments have earned you a space on the list
and the Revolution will not be televised

But will it be served with a strange new appetizer?

...wait, that was the Last Supper. Nevermind. Carry on.

[Grave_n_idle]

This is the whole problem with the process! It should be the Judge's job to prove that the law is unconstitutional

That's nonsensical. Judges decide on the evidence others bring - they're not supposed to start bringing their own.

In this case, if the 'evidence others bring' doesn't match with what is Constitutional, the judge's job is done.

[Grave_n_idle]

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!!

That may well be a battle on our horizon. But it has nothing to do with this battle.

[Grave_n_idle]

with or without government the will of the majority is king, regardless of law

Unless your nation was founded in such a way as to make that not the case, by design.

And even in our system, that can be changed - but as it stands, majorities don't rule. By design.

[The Cat-Tribe]

The judge doesn't "prove" anything one way or another, It's not the courts job to "prove things", courts rule on evidence (proof) provided by the defense and plaintiffs. In this case the plaintiffs provided proof that the defendants violated the US Constitution, and the judge ruled on behalf of the plaintiff because the defense was unable to provide adequate evidence otherwise... If there was a procedural issue on the Judges part it will be handled via the judicial peer review process (aka, the appellate).

The Law was passed and became a Constitutional Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have a right to marriage.... and they do.. they have a right to a heterosexual marriage. I see no conflict in the law here. (the again, I could care less about gays getting married, I'm more interested in abolishing this ability of the judicial to decree laws unconstitutional on the whim of a single judge)

No wonder you are unable to even reply to posts rebutting your ideological ravings and strange mantras, your statements are so far removed from reality that you clearly have no understanding of what the issue we are discussing even is.

Let me break it down for you:

1. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had a right to marriage, based on provisions of the California Constitution. In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008).

2. On November 4, 2008, Proposition 8 was passed, amending the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

3. On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 against a technical challenge that it was a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution (and a few other state law issues). The Court held that the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages created between May 15 and November 4 of 2008 would be preserved. Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009) (pdf).

4. On May 23, 2009, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8 undeer the U.S. Constitution on behalf of two same-sex couples. On August 4, 2010, the U.S. District Court found that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 09-2292 VRW (N.D. Cal., August 4, 2010) (138p pdf) (ordering clerk to enter judgment for plaintiffs pursuant to FRCP 58).

Thus, we have a provision of state law (actually the California Constitution) being superceded by the U.S. Constitution, exactly as set forth in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

What part of this don't you understand?

[Farnhamia]

The judge doesn't "prove" anything one way or another, It's not the courts job to "prove things", courts rule on evidence (proof) provided by the defense and plaintiffs. In this case the plaintiffs provided proof that the defendants violated the US Constitution, and the judge ruled on behalf of the plaintiff because the defense was unable to provide adequate evidence otherwise... If there was a procedural issue on the Judges part it will be handled via the judicial peer review process (aka, the appellate).

The Law was passed and became a Constitutional Amendment.
The Supreme Court decided that same-sex couples have a right to marriage.... and they do.. they have a right to a heterosexual marriage. I see no conflict in the law here. (the again, I could care less about gays getting married, I'm more interested in abolishing this ability of the judicial to decree laws unconstitutional on the whim of a single judge)

No wonder you are unable to even reply to posts rebutting your ideological ravings and strange mantras, your statements are so far removed from reality that you clearly have no understanding of what the issue we are discussing even is.

Let me break it down for you:

1. On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had a right to marriage, based on provisions of the California Constitution. In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757 (2008).

2. On November 4, 2008, Proposition 8 was passed, amending the California Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

3. On May 26, 2009, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 against a technical challenge that it was a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution (and a few other state law issues). The Court held that the approximately 18,000 same-sex marriages created between May 15 and November 4 of 2008 would be preserved. Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal.4th 364 (2009) (pdf).

4. On May 23, 2009, the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to challenge the validity of Proposition 8 undeer the U.S. Constitution on behalf of two same-sex couples. On August 4, 2010, the U.S. District Court found that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 09-2292 VRW (N.D. Cal., August 4, 2010) (138p pdf) (ordering clerk to enter judgment for plaintiffs pursuant to FRCP 58).

Thus, we have a provision of state law (actually the California Constitution) being superceded by the U.S. Constitution, exactly as set forth in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

What part of this don't you understand?

I suppose it's the part where gay people are presumed to be equal to heterosexuals under the law. Everyone knows that perverts can't be equal to upstanding, law-abiding citizens. I thought you studied the law, TCT.