Good for the California Supreme Court

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Again, it should be about upholding the law. In California some laws are determined by popular vote. In this case even a liberal court was able to do the right thing in upholding the law whether they agreed with it or not.

On the other hand, it's not supposed to be our system that the majority can get whatever they want. As LDS our civil rights were trampled upon in Missouri. Just the fact that it was popular at the time in that state didn't make it right or legal to order us exterminated.

Precisely. One of the primary purposes of our Constitution is the protection of minority rights and viewpoints. That doesn't mean the minority always trumps the majority either, just that the majority viewpoint should never be accepted as de facto correct.

[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?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Precisely. One of the primary purposes of our Constitution is the protection of minority rights and viewpoints. That doesn't mean the minority always trumps the majority either, just that the majority viewpoint should never be accepted as de facto correct.

The question being, what exactly that list of "rights" should include. Marriage--gay or otherwise--is not a right.

[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.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by 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.

No one is disputing the necessity of protecting basic rights, especially for the minority. That's Constitution 101.

But beyond those fundamental protections, we rule by majority--whether of the people, or of the people's representatives (who are also elected by majorities). Even the constitution which you cite was created by majorities (albeit "super" majorities).

Marriage is not a right. It does not fall under that category. Which is why Vermont did it the right way. I oppose what they did, but if I want to change it, it's up to me to convince 50% + 1, not file a lawsuit.

Originally Posted by BlueK

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

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...47&postcount=7

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Tex

Marriage is not a right. It does not fall under that category. Which is why Vermont did it the right way. I oppose what they did, but if I want to change it, it's up to me to convince 50% + 1, not file a lawsuit.



http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...47&postcount=7

Yet it would have been nice if the LDS in Missouri could have gotten a day in court when the law of Governor Boggs and the state legislature clearly violated their Constitutional rights. It was a different time, I know. But I am glad it's not like that today.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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.

With all this GOP clamoring to return to "true conservatism" these days, Paul Krugman reminds us that in order to do that, you'd have to go back to William Buckley saying that blacks aren't advanced enough to vote.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

With all this GOP clamoring to return to "true conservatism" these days, Paul Krugman reminds us that in order to do that, you'd have to go back to William Buckley saying that blacks aren't advanced enough to vote.

Read cougarboard. This idea is clearly not dead among many of the "conservatives" over there, although it's not cool these days to be that blunt about it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

With all this GOP clamoring to return to "true conservatism" these days, Paul Krugman reminds us that in order to do that, you'd have to go back to William Buckley saying that blacks aren't advanced enough to vote.

Paul Krugman is an idiot. And you're borderline just for quoting such a ridiculous statement.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Read cougarboard. This idea is clearly not dead among many of the "conservatives" over there, although it's not cool these days to be that blunt about it.

Whoa. I just saw a CB poll on whether Sotomayor's membership in La Raza is disturbing. Goodness gracious.