03-05-2009, 03:21 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
03-05-2009, 03:22 PM | #12 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
I have never heard of the distinction before, because it just sounds like a way jurists may reject the will of the majority. So now we have a star chamber.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
03-05-2009, 03:25 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
It's not like there hasn't been two separate elections on this very issue. Do we live in a democracy or not? Or shall every law the minority doesn't like just get taken to court, where all you need to convince is a handful of judges?
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
03-05-2009, 03:25 PM | #14 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
Why do I feel like I am talking to Levin? |
|
03-05-2009, 03:35 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Elections can't overturn everything. You know that. This case will decide, in part, whether the rights of homosexuals can be removed by a vote of the people (effectively deciding if they are a protected class under California's Constitution). That isn't entirely clear. There is also a procedural aspect to the case which the judges will decide. There are several examples in history that even you would acknowledge involved a judge properly revoking the will of the people because their will was opressive/unconstitutional.
|
03-05-2009, 03:37 PM | #16 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
|
|
03-05-2009, 03:40 PM | #17 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
It is one thing for a statute to be determined unconstitutional when it is viewed against the existing Constitution. That is what we expect of our highest reviewing jurists. It is quite another thing for these jurists to declare that changes duly adopted are unconstitutional as compared to some nebulous "higher law" constitution, one unwritten except in the minds of the all powerful jurists. They are creating bullshit out of thin air because they don't like the results of the elections to change the Constitution. Bullshit, but bullshit walks in California.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
03-05-2009, 03:41 PM | #18 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
If California overturns a constitutional amendment, then California doesn't need an amendment process, it can just go to Mount Olympus so that their jurists can divine the law from the inards of its victims. If California does this, then there is no rule of law, and i vote for anarchy. Fuck California.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
03-05-2009, 03:43 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
03-05-2009, 03:43 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|