A response to a common misconception about the legal system I'm seeing here:
Judges ARE in fact allowed to make laws where none exist, and to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. Our legal system has always worked that way. The legislature can make laws that go against judges' decisions, but only if those laws are not unconstitutional.
Hierarchy of laws: Constitution - Legislation - Common Law (judge-made law)
why is this all from a liberal point of view? Conservative judges are accused by liberals of trying to "legislate morality" as often as any of these things.
And this video is missing the point of activist judges. They are people who have their personal beliefs play a part in their decision instead of relying on the laws and constitution. A good example would be the sweeping right to privacy, which was created by judges instead of the elected legislators who are constitutional supposed to
Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty. Ron Paul Ron Paul for president in 2012! People dont need government to decide who they love! A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to stop government intrusion into our lives. Please suport Ron Paul for president in 2012!
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges are excpting bribes. California judges are employee's of the State not the County. The County is currently giving them $57,688.00 per yr per judge in addition to the pay and benefits they receive from the State. After being exposed for the bribes (Sturgeon v Los Angeles County) the judges paid a lobbyist to pass SBX211 granting the retro active imunity from prosecution. SBX211 does not address the loss of due proccess.
It's ironic that homosexuals are embracing marriage just as it is becoming a thing of the past for heterosexuals. They have much in common with the state of ersatz Israel, which is championing a combination of bigotry, national socialism and genocidal racism at the same time as the rest of the world is putting such things aside.
Mark, please do another "Activist Judges" highlighting corporate personhood and Citizens United -- check out the dissenting opinion on that one... Thanks! You always NAIL it!!
I support judicial activism. However, activism must be limited to protecting people's rights and interpreting the law and Constitution. I don't support non- or selective interpretation, where one disregards what the law or Constitution says in favor of what one would like it to say (for example, saying the Constitution supports Christianity over other religions). Among both liberals and conservatives there is a temptation to use this for good, but doing so also allows it to be used for evil.
I don't think government should have anything to do with marriage. Ideally,if you want to marry someone you do so within your religion or if want a secular marriage,you can go to a lawyer's office,draw up and sign a marriage contract and have whatever ceremoney you want. You can custom make your marriage based on your own desires. If you want to marry gay or straight or bi or more than one person,etc.that's your own business. My only limitation is you have to a consenting adult & not crazy.
@sleedolfine15 Gov't ends up getting tangled in the marriage because of finances, I guess. Taxes are filed differently for married/unmarried people. The system would be too hard for them to cope with if we had more than one spouse. Oh, the horror!!!
Great video. These conservatives have now attacked the memory of Thurgood Marshall. According to conservatives, just about any progressive reform made by the judicial system was and is of the activist variety and should be shunned. With the changing demographics of this country, I'd love to see how conservatives cling to that kind of ideology and expect to be relevant.
I don't give a rat's ass one way or another. I'm just sick of hearing butthurt gays whine about how they're being oppressed in their favorite state. Fags, I'm sorry that junior-high was awkward for you, and that you didn't get the date you really wanted for senior prom; but the rest of the country has grownup problems to deal with right now. Just stay in the closet and remain ashamed of yourselves until further notice.
you are whats wrong with America at the moment. How would you like if you couldn't marry the person you loved? It's not just oppression, its DISCRIMINATION. This has nothing to do with whether or not gays had bad experiences in high school, but the fact that ass-backward idiots like yourself thinks it okay to discriminate against other human beings. Not too long ago we thought it was okay to do that with blacks and look how that turned out.
@flclfanman Again, I suspect that butthurt, whining gays (such as yourself) are mostly upset because they never expected to be shot down by a popular referendum in California of all places. Take a hint: most of the country doesn't like you and doesn't want to deal with your hurt-feelings right now. WE ARE TOO BROKE TO CARE!!!
1) I'm not gay, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that what CA and most states are discriminating agaist gay americans
2) If most of the country is fed up with the gay rights issue why do more states continue to pass laws that're pro gay rights?
3) You or anyone else having money or a job in no way affects this issue. long before the economy went to shit homophobes like you were still denying rights to gays.
@flclfanman We conservatives have learned that being too anti-gay is an indication of insecurity in one's sexual orientation. Consequently, we've learned to be more tolerant. However, tolerance does not mean approval. What pisses us off is when gays get up in our grill on TV and demand that we give full legal approval for a lifestyle that most of us still consider somewhat deviant.
@1st503rdSGT So what your saying is that you've learned to be okay with gays... because not being okay with them makes you look gay? Talk about doing the right thing for the wrong reason. But you do bring up a fine point, some people just don't approve of gay marriage and it should be alright for them to feel that way. However, not providing gays with the same rights as everyone else isn't promoting the equality that is mentioned in our very own Declaration of Independence.
@1st503rdSGT Asking for legal approval for a "deviant lifestyle" pissed you off?! Well, you piss me off. Who gets pissed off is not very relevant for the nature of the legal system.
It's too bad people think it's "deviant". I wish people would consider more how they might feel if society said "you can not marry the one you love because it's wrong". Who are they to tell you how to live your life? Asking a gay man to choose to be with a woman is like asking a straight man to be with another man. It's how they're born, deal with it. They're not looking for approval, they're looking for acceptance and equal rights as human beings.
@flclfanman Sadly, "homophobes" seem to make up most people in the U.S.. All the people that i'ved talked to privately who use the world "gay" as a pejorative say that they really are homophobic, or say something to the effect of "i support gay-rights as long as they aren't gay around me." Just ask people. "Gay" is the new n-word apparently.
if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the other same arguments gay activists make today
so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy
@kenballer00 Nor does the 14th amendment recognize straight marriage. Nor does the Constitution. But the 14th Amendment does contain the critical Equal Protection Clause. Marriage is a state issue, and it's becoming understood that states should allow any TWO law abiding adults to wed.
BTW, the same Wikipedia article for Loving v. Virginia correctly states that:
"Hernandez v. Robles (2006) rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 (1942). "
SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
@kenballer00 Skinner v. Oklahoma was a ruling regarding forced sterilization, not the constitutional definition of marriage. And I'd be wiling to bet that a subsequent court decision has mentioned that Skinner v. Oklahoma should not be relied upon as the definition of marriage.
Bottom line - while states authorize adults to marry, the Constitution demands equal protection. Either any adult can marry any other adult, or no one should. It's that simple.
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis....This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION."
as you can see, Civil marriage is primarily a matter of state rights as the supreme court has stated not individual rights
therefore, Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
@kenballer00 You are not framing the argument properly. Same sex couples who want to marry are not trying to redefine marriage. They argue (correctly) that a state has no right to choose which couples are legally recognized as married. States tried to prevent blacks from marrying. That was defeated on constitutional grounds of equal protection. It's going to be the exact same thing here.
U.S. federal constitutional law has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation into a stable environment where there is two biological married parents. something same sex couples cannot do.
@kenballer00 You're kidding, right? Show me the mandate that requires married couples to procreate.
You really should consider moving someplace where they hate freedom. It seems that you do. Saudi Arabia, perhaps? Malaysia? You know, they imprison gays.
this is a quote from the federal 8th circuit court case called Citizens for equal protection v. Bruning:
"The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in "steering procreation into marriage." By affording legal recognition and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples..." cont....
"....such laws "encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children." The State and its supporting amici cite a host of judicial decisions and secondary authorities recognizing and upholding this rationale. The argument is based in part on the traditional notion that two committed heterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children, which modern-day homosexual parents understandably decry..." cont...
"...But it is also based on a "responsible procreation" theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples, who cannot. Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State's justification "lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."
@kenballer00 But the 10th Amendment does not allow a 'tyranny of the majority.' The founders made sure of that. You cannot deny law abiding people equal protection under the law simply because 51% of the population doesn't like those who want to get married.
In my experience, people who rally around the 10th Amendment are people who dislike Amendments 11-26, because that's when women and non whites began to enjoy equal protection. Not saying you are like that, but you dropped a clue there.
@Hopeful71 Not quite. Activist Judges are those that disregard constitutions and laws to rule in ways that they think is just. They usually excuse it by mentioning a "living document" "the spirit of the law" or even "original intent." Actual justice is ruling according to the words of laws and constitutions according to the definition at the time of writing. Constitutions supersede laws (and precedent), so striking down non-compliant laws is not activism.
You are reiterating my point while making it at the same time.
You simply interpret the Constitution as your ideology wants it to mean. Show me the federal appellate court decision that 'strays from the constitution," & I will show you where you read the constitution different from others.
The whole term is politically motivated to embolden those on the losing sides of those decisions. You're not a victim, your ideology does not jive with the constitution.
@Hopeful71 It's not what I want it to mean; it's the only sound way to rule if you look at it logically. With the "living document" position, there's no reason to have a constitution since it means nothing except what a Judge wants it to. and "original intent" is wrong since there are several intents when laws are drafted, the law's specific words were the ones that the majority compromised on. The purpose of a judge is to interpret the law, not legislate his or her own brand of justice.
Ahhh, so you are of the opinion that the constitution only covered muskets in 'the right to bear arms"?
Or wait, no, "nuclear arms," that is a form of 'arms' too; so I have my constitutional right to nuclear arms. Watch out Iowa, you have been pissing me off for far too long.
Which is it?
You keep making the same point; "I KNOW how the constitution should be read & those who disagree, no matter how more experienced in law, are wrong simply by disagreeing with my perception."
@Hopeful71 If, when the Bill of Rights it was ratified, "arms" included all weaponry, then yes, the US Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from making such a restriction.
Anyways, plenty of experienced judges agree with me as well, so appealing to authority will not win that argument for either of us. Still, my point is that , for better or worse, activist judges are ones that disregard constitution and law, and is not merely a pejorative to lob at those whom you disagree with.
....so what do we do next; continue with enumerated powers or the BOR? How about that nasty 10th amendment? Commerce Clause? Where do we fit the Federalist Papers (sticky #47) into this, or Jefferson's writings? How do you factor Adam's & Jefferson's claims to constitutional authority?
Can we then start on the amendments beyond the BOR?
But, your right, commentators who haven't even had the time to read the judgement screaming "activist" is ground in solid reasoning & not a pejorative
@Hopeful71 As for the fourth, electronic documents can be "effects" and the ambiguousness is cleared up a bit in the next part, although "probable cause" either needs to be referenced or interpreted. The Federalist Papers, and other writing from the beginning of the country are important to consider for practical reasons, but should bear no effect on a judge's decision. In any case, I'm not against interpretation where it is needed, but disregarding constitution and law to promote agendas.
@Hopeful71@Hopeful71 What was your point? You were the one that brought in the appeal to authority. It's possible that other judicial philosophies can be valid aside from my strict textualism, but it seems the most logical to me. Still, you bring up good point with the mention of the first amendment since it only mentions "speech" and "print" as far as communication goes, unless freedom of speech was synonymous with all forms of communication as it is today. That's a good point.
yes modern society, has turned into one big live jerry springer show, life is so wonderful! Why I can just sit and watch a live freak show any time I go in public. From the drugged out zombies, to the 250 pound lez couples, tatooed people just think my grandpa would have had to go to a circus to see what I see for free today! Babydaddy's running around counting his smallyez, and yes big daddy obamo is here to pay for it all, with gobinment money! bernake money for everybody!~!!!!!
@bohemianh It was so good back in the "Good ole days". Blacks couldn't vote, you could get arrested for being gay and women were second class. Yeah the good ole days!
@bohemianh this is supposed to be the liberal way is always right sarcasm. LIke OMG two perverts who fk eachother who ARENT gonna live together for the rest of their life cant be sanctified by some stupid piece of paper.. the HORROR!
A response to a common misconception about the legal system I'm seeing here:
Judges ARE in fact allowed to make laws where none exist, and to strike down laws that are unconstitutional. Our legal system has always worked that way. The legislature can make laws that go against judges' decisions, but only if those laws are not unconstitutional.
Hierarchy of laws: Constitution - Legislation - Common Law (judge-made law)
sun1one1 1 week ago
Legislation is simply not not the job of the Judicial branch. Whether it goes in your favor or not, it still subverts our system of government.
7norton4 4 months ago
why is this all from a liberal point of view? Conservative judges are accused by liberals of trying to "legislate morality" as often as any of these things.
And this video is missing the point of activist judges. They are people who have their personal beliefs play a part in their decision instead of relying on the laws and constitution. A good example would be the sweeping right to privacy, which was created by judges instead of the elected legislators who are constitutional supposed to
afeeder 8 months ago
Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty. Ron Paul Ron Paul for president in 2012! People dont need government to decide who they love! A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to stop government intrusion into our lives. Please suport Ron Paul for president in 2012!
dapop1001 8 months ago
I wonder if the dude who made this still had shit on his dick when he thought it up.
tedlgj 9 months ago
No one has to be gay. They chose to be disgustiner than hell.
redicedragon 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges are excpting bribes. California judges are employee's of the State not the County. The County is currently giving them $57,688.00 per yr per judge in addition to the pay and benefits they receive from the State. After being exposed for the bribes (Sturgeon v Los Angeles County) the judges paid a lobbyist to pass SBX211 granting the retro active imunity from prosecution. SBX211 does not address the loss of due proccess.
(see) How To Disqualify Your Judge
danielcooper1000 11 months ago
It's ironic that homosexuals are embracing marriage just as it is becoming a thing of the past for heterosexuals. They have much in common with the state of ersatz Israel, which is championing a combination of bigotry, national socialism and genocidal racism at the same time as the rest of the world is putting such things aside.
1001AcidDrops 1 year ago
What about Supreme Court judges supporting right wingnut rallies.....and their wives supporting right wingnut causes?
DeucePrez 1 year ago
Mark, please do another "Activist Judges" highlighting corporate personhood and Citizens United -- check out the dissenting opinion on that one... Thanks! You always NAIL it!!
featherjackMaine 1 year ago
I support judicial activism. However, activism must be limited to protecting people's rights and interpreting the law and Constitution. I don't support non- or selective interpretation, where one disregards what the law or Constitution says in favor of what one would like it to say (for example, saying the Constitution supports Christianity over other religions). Among both liberals and conservatives there is a temptation to use this for good, but doing so also allows it to be used for evil.
927541 1 year ago
I don't think government should have anything to do with marriage. Ideally,if you want to marry someone you do so within your religion or if want a secular marriage,you can go to a lawyer's office,draw up and sign a marriage contract and have whatever ceremoney you want. You can custom make your marriage based on your own desires. If you want to marry gay or straight or bi or more than one person,etc.that's your own business. My only limitation is you have to a consenting adult & not crazy.
sleedolfine15 1 year ago 14
@sleedolfine15 well said
Thespians1 1 year ago
@sleedolfine15 Gov't ends up getting tangled in the marriage because of finances, I guess. Taxes are filed differently for married/unmarried people. The system would be too hard for them to cope with if we had more than one spouse. Oh, the horror!!!
RufousOtter 1 year ago
Great video. These conservatives have now attacked the memory of Thurgood Marshall. According to conservatives, just about any progressive reform made by the judicial system was and is of the activist variety and should be shunned. With the changing demographics of this country, I'd love to see how conservatives cling to that kind of ideology and expect to be relevant.
beeshor1 1 year ago
In the words of Cenk Uygur. That's AWESOME.
NickWoha 1 year ago
I don't give a rat's ass one way or another. I'm just sick of hearing butthurt gays whine about how they're being oppressed in their favorite state. Fags, I'm sorry that junior-high was awkward for you, and that you didn't get the date you really wanted for senior prom; but the rest of the country has grownup problems to deal with right now. Just stay in the closet and remain ashamed of yourselves until further notice.
1st503rdSGT 1 year ago
@1st503rdSGT
you are whats wrong with America at the moment. How would you like if you couldn't marry the person you loved? It's not just oppression, its DISCRIMINATION. This has nothing to do with whether or not gays had bad experiences in high school, but the fact that ass-backward idiots like yourself thinks it okay to discriminate against other human beings. Not too long ago we thought it was okay to do that with blacks and look how that turned out.
Homophobic douche.
flclfanman 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
1st503rdSGT 1 year ago
@flclfanman Again, I suspect that butthurt, whining gays (such as yourself) are mostly upset because they never expected to be shot down by a popular referendum in California of all places. Take a hint: most of the country doesn't like you and doesn't want to deal with your hurt-feelings right now. WE ARE TOO BROKE TO CARE!!!
1st503rdSGT 1 year ago
@1st503rdSGT
1) I'm not gay, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that what CA and most states are discriminating agaist gay americans
2) If most of the country is fed up with the gay rights issue why do more states continue to pass laws that're pro gay rights?
3) You or anyone else having money or a job in no way affects this issue. long before the economy went to shit homophobes like you were still denying rights to gays.
flclfanman 1 year ago 14
@flclfanman We conservatives have learned that being too anti-gay is an indication of insecurity in one's sexual orientation. Consequently, we've learned to be more tolerant. However, tolerance does not mean approval. What pisses us off is when gays get up in our grill on TV and demand that we give full legal approval for a lifestyle that most of us still consider somewhat deviant.
1st503rdSGT 1 year ago
@1st503rdSGT So what your saying is that you've learned to be okay with gays... because not being okay with them makes you look gay? Talk about doing the right thing for the wrong reason. But you do bring up a fine point, some people just don't approve of gay marriage and it should be alright for them to feel that way. However, not providing gays with the same rights as everyone else isn't promoting the equality that is mentioned in our very own Declaration of Independence.
Mystrymeat 1 year ago
@1st503rdSGT Asking for legal approval for a "deviant lifestyle" pissed you off?! Well, you piss me off. Who gets pissed off is not very relevant for the nature of the legal system.
Pomme843 1 year ago
@1st503rdSGT Well, lots of progressives view the conservative philosophy as "somewhat deviant" ... guess deviance is in the eyes of the beholder!
marcostar57 1 year ago
It's too bad people think it's "deviant". I wish people would consider more how they might feel if society said "you can not marry the one you love because it's wrong". Who are they to tell you how to live your life? Asking a gay man to choose to be with a woman is like asking a straight man to be with another man. It's how they're born, deal with it. They're not looking for approval, they're looking for acceptance and equal rights as human beings.
Reagh 1 year ago
@flclfanman Sadly, "homophobes" seem to make up most people in the U.S.. All the people that i'ved talked to privately who use the world "gay" as a pejorative say that they really are homophobic, or say something to the effect of "i support gay-rights as long as they aren't gay around me." Just ask people. "Gay" is the new n-word apparently.
927541 1 year ago
@flclfanman 2) The squeaky wheel gets the grease,
112251919112 10 months ago
Horrible Judges! Agreeing with equal human rights all these years! What kind of world do we live in!!! :)
TheCircle000 1 year ago
if you Go to Wikipedia and type in Baker v. Nelson, The case will show you that the same court in Loving v Virginia not only distinguished same sex marriage from interracial marriage, but established it as a right that does not exist under the constitution and never did. They also rejected and refuted many of the other same arguments gay activists make today
so the 14th amendment does not confer a RIGHT to gay marriage anymore than it does for polygamy
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Nor does the 14th amendment recognize straight marriage. Nor does the Constitution. But the 14th Amendment does contain the critical Equal Protection Clause. Marriage is a state issue, and it's becoming understood that states should allow any TWO law abiding adults to wed.
BTW, the same Wikipedia article for Loving v. Virginia correctly states that:
"Hernandez v. Robles (2006) rejected any reliance upon the Loving case as controlling upon the issue of same-sex marriage."
Dhalgren01 1 year ago
@Dhalgren01
your were saying:
From Loving v. Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 (1942). "
SKINNER V. OKLAHOMA 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part:
"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 Skinner v. Oklahoma was a ruling regarding forced sterilization, not the constitutional definition of marriage. And I'd be wiling to bet that a subsequent court decision has mentioned that Skinner v. Oklahoma should not be relied upon as the definition of marriage.
Bottom line - while states authorize adults to marry, the Constitution demands equal protection. Either any adult can marry any other adult, or no one should. It's that simple.
Dhalgren01 1 year ago
@D
From the U.S. supreme court Baker v. Nelson:
"The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis....This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for RESTRUCTURING it by judicial LEGISLATION."
kenballer00 1 year ago
@Dhalgren01
as you can see, Civil marriage is primarily a matter of state rights as the supreme court has stated not individual rights
therefore, Same sex couples do not have a SPECIAL right to redefine what marriage is for everybody else; the " will of the people" have a FUNDAMENTAL right under the tenth amendment to do such a task because we live in a democracy not an aristocracy.
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 You are not framing the argument properly. Same sex couples who want to marry are not trying to redefine marriage. They argue (correctly) that a state has no right to choose which couples are legally recognized as married. States tried to prevent blacks from marrying. That was defeated on constitutional grounds of equal protection. It's going to be the exact same thing here.
Dhalgren01 1 year ago
@Dhalgren01
U.S. federal constitutional law has been consistent throughout the history of marriage ranging from plural marriage ( Murphy v. Ramsey), from interracial marriage (Loving v Virginia), to even same sex marriage (Baker v. Nelson) that marriage is between one man and one woman and the purpose of it is to PROMOTE responsible procreation into a stable environment where there is two biological married parents. something same sex couples cannot do.
i hardly call this an aberration
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 You're kidding, right? Show me the mandate that requires married couples to procreate.
You really should consider moving someplace where they hate freedom. It seems that you do. Saudi Arabia, perhaps? Malaysia? You know, they imprison gays.
Dhalgren01 1 year ago
Comment removed
kenballer00 1 year ago
@Dhalgren01
this is a quote from the federal 8th circuit court case called Citizens for equal protection v. Bruning:
"The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to married couples are rationally related to the government interest in "steering procreation into marriage." By affording legal recognition and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples..." cont....
kenballer00 1 year ago
@Dhalgren01
"....such laws "encourage procreation to take place within the socially recognized unit that is best situated for raising children." The State and its supporting amici cite a host of judicial decisions and secondary authorities recognizing and upholding this rationale. The argument is based in part on the traditional notion that two committed heterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children, which modern-day homosexual parents understandably decry..." cont...
kenballer00 1 year ago
@Dhalgren0
"...But it is also based on a "responsible procreation" theory that justifies conferring the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on same-sex couples, who cannot. Whatever our personal views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot conclude that the State's justification "lacks a rational relationship to legitimate state interests."
kenballer00 1 year ago
@kenballer00 But the 10th Amendment does not allow a 'tyranny of the majority.' The founders made sure of that. You cannot deny law abiding people equal protection under the law simply because 51% of the population doesn't like those who want to get married.
In my experience, people who rally around the 10th Amendment are people who dislike Amendments 11-26, because that's when women and non whites began to enjoy equal protection. Not saying you are like that, but you dropped a clue there.
Dhalgren01 1 year ago
Sounds like a great movie. I hear, in the end Zombie Jesus comes out and eats their brains.
"Brains.. brains...need brains..."
rubberbaby00 1 year ago
"Annihilates the will of the people..."
Well, mob rule is bad, so....
GarlicPudding 1 year ago
Thumbs up!
JixYt 1 year ago
oh please
spacebunny3000 1 year ago
Judgement you agree with=justice
Judgement you disagree with=activist judge
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 Not quite. Activist Judges are those that disregard constitutions and laws to rule in ways that they think is just. They usually excuse it by mentioning a "living document" "the spirit of the law" or even "original intent." Actual justice is ruling according to the words of laws and constitutions according to the definition at the time of writing. Constitutions supersede laws (and precedent), so striking down non-compliant laws is not activism.
HerrSchenkel 1 year ago
@HerrSchenkel
You are reiterating my point while making it at the same time.
You simply interpret the Constitution as your ideology wants it to mean. Show me the federal appellate court decision that 'strays from the constitution," & I will show you where you read the constitution different from others.
The whole term is politically motivated to embolden those on the losing sides of those decisions. You're not a victim, your ideology does not jive with the constitution.
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 It's not what I want it to mean; it's the only sound way to rule if you look at it logically. With the "living document" position, there's no reason to have a constitution since it means nothing except what a Judge wants it to. and "original intent" is wrong since there are several intents when laws are drafted, the law's specific words were the ones that the majority compromised on. The purpose of a judge is to interpret the law, not legislate his or her own brand of justice.
HerrSchenkel 1 year ago
@HerrSchenkel
Ahhh, so you are of the opinion that the constitution only covered muskets in 'the right to bear arms"?
Or wait, no, "nuclear arms," that is a form of 'arms' too; so I have my constitutional right to nuclear arms. Watch out Iowa, you have been pissing me off for far too long.
Which is it?
You keep making the same point; "I KNOW how the constitution should be read & those who disagree, no matter how more experienced in law, are wrong simply by disagreeing with my perception."
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 If, when the Bill of Rights it was ratified, "arms" included all weaponry, then yes, the US Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from making such a restriction.
Anyways, plenty of experienced judges agree with me as well, so appealing to authority will not win that argument for either of us. Still, my point is that , for better or worse, activist judges are ones that disregard constitution and law, and is not merely a pejorative to lob at those whom you disagree with.
HerrSchenkel 1 year ago
@HerrSchenkel
"activist judges are ones that disregard constitution and law"
Well then since 99% of those judge have short lived careers & have their judgements overturned on appeal, we got no problems.
"plenty of experienced judges agree with me as well, so appealing to authority will not win that argument for either of us"
Funny, that was my point; you can't seem to wrap your mind around the idea that opinions in matters of law beyond yours are possibly valid.
cont...
Hopeful71 1 year ago
...cont
Continuing from 'arms'
So 'free press' obviously does not apply to journalism beyond print. To assume so would not a literal interpretation of the constitution.
The fourth clearly does not apply to electronic documents...in fact computer really muck up the hell out of a literal interpretation.
Thank god they didn't leave ambiguous terms like "unreasonable" (searches & seizures)
& what exactly is 'provide for the...general welfare"
We can go on for days here....
Hopeful71 1 year ago
....so what do we do next; continue with enumerated powers or the BOR? How about that nasty 10th amendment? Commerce Clause? Where do we fit the Federalist Papers (sticky #47) into this, or Jefferson's writings? How do you factor Adam's & Jefferson's claims to constitutional authority?
Can we then start on the amendments beyond the BOR?
But, your right, commentators who haven't even had the time to read the judgement screaming "activist" is ground in solid reasoning & not a pejorative
Hopeful71 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 As for the fourth, electronic documents can be "effects" and the ambiguousness is cleared up a bit in the next part, although "probable cause" either needs to be referenced or interpreted. The Federalist Papers, and other writing from the beginning of the country are important to consider for practical reasons, but should bear no effect on a judge's decision. In any case, I'm not against interpretation where it is needed, but disregarding constitution and law to promote agendas.
HerrSchenkel 1 year ago
@Hopeful71 @Hopeful71 What was your point? You were the one that brought in the appeal to authority. It's possible that other judicial philosophies can be valid aside from my strict textualism, but it seems the most logical to me. Still, you bring up good point with the mention of the first amendment since it only mentions "speech" and "print" as far as communication goes, unless freedom of speech was synonymous with all forms of communication as it is today. That's a good point.
HerrSchenkel 1 year ago
Is this a promo for Glenn Beck?
xccmx 1 year ago
the Horror! D=
Wehrhafter 1 year ago
wtf.
Super2Donny 1 year ago
Legalize it; uphold the constitution!
quidproquo2004 1 year ago
yes modern society, has turned into one big live jerry springer show, life is so wonderful! Why I can just sit and watch a live freak show any time I go in public. From the drugged out zombies, to the 250 pound lez couples, tatooed people just think my grandpa would have had to go to a circus to see what I see for free today! Babydaddy's running around counting his smallyez, and yes big daddy obamo is here to pay for it all, with gobinment money! bernake money for everybody!~!!!!!
bohemianh 1 year ago
@bohemianh cool story bro
mjhacker 1 year ago
@bohemianh It was so good back in the "Good ole days". Blacks couldn't vote, you could get arrested for being gay and women were second class. Yeah the good ole days!
afromosaic 1 year ago
@afromosaic Yes they were, can you get my an ice tea on your next trip out of the closet.
bohemianh 1 year ago
@bohemianh this is supposed to be the liberal way is always right sarcasm. LIke OMG two perverts who fk eachother who ARENT gonna live together for the rest of their life cant be sanctified by some stupid piece of paper.. the HORROR!
spacebunny3000 1 year ago
@spacebunny3000 those two boys, are the better than traditional families, didn't you hear that gay parents are more understanding.
bohemianh 1 year ago
u rasirst?
Zukovec 1 year ago
Well said, I love it.
akai454 1 year ago
Oh the horror...
matirule 1 year ago