Good for the California Supreme Court

[Tex]

Once in a rare while, the expediency of the political minority in the judiciary doesn't override the democratic will of the people. And by a 6-1 margin no less.

Good on 'em.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Once in a rare while, the expediency of the political minority in the judiciary doesn't override the democratic will of the people. And by a 6-1 margin no less.

Good on 'em.

Conservatives really don't understand that the overwhelming majority of judges in the US are interested in arriving at an honest and just result. When judges make the "correct" ruling, according to conservatives, conservatives say "wow- they finally got one right, but don't expect it to happen again." When judges make the "wrong" ruling, according to conservatives, conservatives say "look at the liberal activist judges."

Conservatives have declared war on the judiciary. They will regret it one day, as any weakening of one of the three pillars of our democracy only serves to strengthen one of the two remaining pillars (which conservatives also oddly favored under Bush- carte blanche for the executive).

Conservative hatred of the courts today is a relic of court-mandated desegregation. I am glad opposition to desegregation doesn't lie at the heart of any of my political beliefs.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

When judges make the "correct" ruling, according to conservatives, conservatives say "wow- they finally got one right, but don't expect it to happen again." When judges make the "wrong" ruling, according to conservatives, conservatives say "look at the liberal activist judges."

Yes, we all have judicial philosophies that we agree and disagree with. Thanks for that tremendous insight.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Conservatives have declared war on the judiciary. They will regret it one day, as any weakening of one of the three pillars of our democracy only serves to strengthen one of the two remaining pillars (which conservatives also oddly favored under Bush- carte blanche for the executive).

Conservative hatred of the courts today is a relic of court-mandated desegregation. I am glad opposition to desegregation doesn't lie at the heart of any of my political beliefs.

Three cheers for six judges who chose this day to recognize that it's not their place to enforce the minority's personal preferences on the majority.

[MikeWaters]

It is not the role of judges to sit back and think "what is the best policy for this country going forward."

Their job is to fairly interpret existing law.

I know Cali, that you don't agree, but I am much more comfortable with life-apointees interpreting law, than legislating law.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It is not the role of judges to sit back and think "what is the best policy for this country going forward."

Their job is to fairly interpret existing law.

I know Cali, that you don't agree, but I am much more comfortable with life-apointees interpreting law, than legislating law.

What, pray tell, is the actual difference between interpreting law and legislating law? This is such a canard of the right. Sure, at the extremes you could have a situation where a judge just entirely makes up a new law with no basis to do so, and then that judge's opinion is upheld on appeal, but that is so extraordinarily rare as to hardly merit discussion.

If a law is passed, and is applied in one manner, and then a judge interprets that law, and says it must be applied in an entirely different manner, then the interpretation of that judge becomes the law (that is why it is called "Common Law").

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yes, we all have judicial philosophies that we agree and disagree with. Thanks for that tremendous insight.

No, that isn't the point at all. The point is that conservatives have decided that the judicial branch is inherently corrupt today and overtly political and they are working tirelessly to undermine the judicial branch.

Three cheers for six judges who chose this day to recognize that it's not their place to enforce the minority's personal preferences on the majority.

That wasn't the issue they resolved.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

Three cheers for six judges who chose this day to recognize that it's not their place to enforce the minority's personal preferences on the majority.

I think it's important to make the distinction that the court should be upholding the law rather than just ruling in favor of the majority. The two things will usually coincide, but not always. The way you stated it gives the impression you want an activist court also -- just one that rules in your favor.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I think it's important to make the distinction that the court should be upholding the law rather than just ruling in favor of the majority. The two things will usually coincide, but not always. The way you stated it gives the impression you want an activist court also -- just one that rules in your favor.

That IS what he wants. Don't let Tex fool you. His preference for judicial philosophy is 100% results oriented.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I think it's important to make the distinction that the court should be upholding the law rather than just ruling in favor of the majority. The two things will usually coincide, but not always.

Of course the court should be upholding the law. And laws get passed by majorities. Every law, in fact.

Originally Posted by BlueK

The way you stated it gives the impression you want an activist court also -- just one that rules in your favor.

This is nonsense. I said no such thing. Did you happen to catch my reaction to Vermont's legalization of gay marriage, BlueK?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

Of course the court should be upholding the law. And laws get passed by majorities. Every law, in fact.



This is nonsense. I said no such thing. Did you happen to catch my reaction to Vermont's legalization of gay marriage, BlueK?

Laws (except in California) get passed by the majority in the legislature. The legislature may or may not accurately reflect the popular majority's view on that particular issue. While it usually will, it doesn't have to. I think it's important to point out the distinction. It's not pure democracy. Then of course you have the federal and state Constitutions which can and should override laws that get passed that contradict it, no matter how popular those laws may be. I go back to my LDS example. So what if the legislature and governor thought it was ok to uproot thousands of people from their homes and either kill them or kick them out of the state. That definitely was a violation of their Constititutional rights. The majority can't always be allowed to have their way if they don't conform to constitutional or statuatory law.

And no, I don't know what you said about Vermont.