Why Lone Federal Judges Shouldn't Be Overturning The Voters

[FaninAma]

Because a lot of them are just products of the liberal school system and do not use the legal rationality but instead allow their own personal political biases to make decisions. Not to mention a lot of them are dumb*sses.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/14/VA-Same-Sex-Marriage-Ruling-Confuses-Declaration-Of-Independence-With-Constitution

why does the misinformed opinion of one legal stooge who probably got her position by being a political lackey for a political party get to negate the will of a majority of the voters? The FFs really screwed up when they left the judiciary with so much power.....although I doubt they intended to do so.

[yermom]

can you remind me how government getting out of more people's personal lives is so terrible?

what basis do laws against gay marriage come from?

the Supreme Court is already leaning to this, so what does it matter how long some states hold out?

[FaninAma]

So, why have any laws on personal behavior? Let's legalize all drugs, recognize all forms of marriage including polygamy, do away with seat belt laws, and on and on and on.

Hell, let's do away with elections and voter referendums all together and let these asswipe judges become our defacto rulers. That's what they think they are any way. Why allow the stupid masses the right to vote and decide what kind of society they want....... right?

The genius judge who made this ruling apparently graduated form a law school that is ranked 194th out of 197 in the nation and is basically the equivalent of a night school. Yet she now deems herself intellectually and morally superior to the majority of voters in an entire state.

[yermom]

Gotta love you nanny state types. Good thing you have the big government brother to tell you how to live

[FaninAma]

So voters deciding deciding societal guidelines and values is a nanny state but a handful of unelected elitist judges and beaurocrats making the decisions for us is not.

Is that what passes for progressive logic these days?

If you want to legalize gay marriage then do it through a referendum by the voters. Allowing elitists to make the decisions only deepens the divisions in this country like the Roe v. Wade decision did.

[SoonerorLater]

what basis do laws against gay marriage come from?

I'll just speak to Oklahoma since I live here but what laws against gay marriage do we have?

[Skysooner]

I'll just speak to Oklahoma since I live here but what laws against gay marriage do we have?

Constitutional amendment defining what a marriage is. Passed by 75%. I was in the 25% for that one.

I hold it to be an impious and detestable maxim that, politically speaking, the people have a right to do anything; and yet I have asserted that all authority originates in the will of the majority. Am I, then, in contradiction with myself?

A general law, which bears the name of justice, has been made and sanctioned, not only by a majority of this or that people, but by a majority of mankind. The rights of every people are therefore confined within the limits of what is just. A nation may be considered as a jury which is empowered to represent society at large and to apply justice, which is its law. Ought such a jury, which represents society, to have more power than the society itself whose laws it executes?

When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right of the majority to command, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind. Some have not feared to assert that a people can never outstep the boundaries of justice and reason in those affairs which are peculiarly its own; and that consequently full power may be given to the majority by which it is represented. But this is the language of a slave.

Alexis de Toqueville, 1835

[yermom]

So voters deciding deciding societal guidelines and values is a nanny state but a handful of unelected elitist judges and beaurocrats making the decisions for us is not.

Is that what passes for progressive logic these days?

If you want to legalize gay marriage then do it through a referendum by the voters. Allowing elitists to make the decisions only deepens the divisions in this country like the Roe v. Wade decision did.

the majority could vote for a lot of things, it doesn't mean it trumps the Constitution

if the majority doesn't want to get gay married, they don't have to

[FaninAma]

PLease direct me to the section of the Constitution that defines the legality of different types of marriage. Not the interpretation of a few pinheaded federal judges who look at things from a narrow background of personal experience and many of whom entered law just to feel empowered over their fellow citizens.

I don't agree with results of every state referendum but I respect the result. I do not respect the judiciary in this country at all. They have overstepped their Constituonal authority and they have interjected arbitrary personal opinion into matters that should be determined by the citizens.

The Founding Fathers must have been drinking heavily the day they decided to allow politically appointed judges to serve for life. Nothing in politics should be a guaranteed life time gig.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

PLease direct me to the section of the Constitution that defines the legality of different types of marriage. Not the interpretation of a few pinheaded federal judges who look at things from a narrow background of personal experience and many of whom entered law just to feel empowered over their fellow citizens.

I don't agree with results of every state referendum but I respect the result. I do not respect the judiciary in this country at all. They have overstepped their Constituonal authority and they have interjected arbitrary personal opinion into matters that should be determined by the citizens.

The Founding Fathers must have been drinking heavily the day they decided to allow politically appointed judges to serve for life. Nothing in politics should be a guaranteed life time gig.excellent post!

[SoonerorLater]

Unless somebody can show me different than marriage is a state issue.


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 10

[FaninAma]

One dumbass federal judge can negate the votes of millions of citizens. Makes sense to me. And when the Supreme Court decides issues by 5-4 votes it tells me the judiciary basically uses personal opinion on how to decide issues usually depending on which political party appointed them.

Elitist bull****.

[FaninAma]

Constitutional amendment defining what a marriage is. Passed by 75%. I was in the 25% for that one.

I hold it to be an impious and detestable maxim that, politically speaking, the people have a right to do anything; and yet I have asserted that all authority originates in the will of the majority. Am I, then, in contradiction with myself?

A general law, which bears the name of justice, has been made and sanctioned, not only by a majority of this or that people, but by a majority of mankind. The rights of every people are therefore confined within the limits of what is just. A nation may be considered as a jury which is empowered to represent society at large and to apply justice, which is its law. Ought such a jury, which represents society, to have more power than the society itself whose laws it executes?

When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the right of the majority to command, but I simply appeal from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind. Some have not feared to assert that a people can never outstep the boundaries of justice and reason in those affairs which are peculiarly its own; and that consequently full power may be given to the majority by which it is represented. But this is the language of a slave.

Alexis de Toqueville, 1835
Or Mr. de Toqueville could have organized a grass roots education and voter mobilization movement and changed the unjust law by democratic legislative processes. The reason we are ruled by non- elected beaurocrats and judges is because the legislative branch has been decimated by repeated power grabs by the other two branches of government.

[yermom]

oh, the poor legislative branch.

our government was literally set up so that the majority of idiots couldn't just do whatever they want. that's how it works.

do you really want the unwashed masses making American Idol type of decisions?

[badger]

The Supreme Court needs to make a ruling and when they do, this can finally be put to rest.

I don't know what the decision will be, but like others have said, single by-appointment judges overturning state votes is a bad way to go about the law. At least when the Supreme Court rules, it will be by justices that had to go through vigorous questioning and a vote by the us senate. It will be a decision that will hold more respect than single judges among voters

I respect that judges who overturned state votes on this issue have also granted emergency stays as well in okla and Virginia. At least they realized the magnitude of their opinions and that they were not the final authority

[SoonerorLater]

Yeah that darn Constitution is such a pain in the *** to figure out ways to circumvent. I have to admit the corrupt judicial system is getting much better at it though. Won't be long until we can just throw that antiquated piece of paper away.

[FaninAma]

oh, the poor legislative branch.

our government was literally set up so that the majority of idiots couldn't just do whatever they want. that's how it works.

do you really want the unwashed masses making American Idol type of decisions?
Yeah, heaven forbid that humans have the right to self-determination through a democratic elective process. We must always have an unelected group of oligarchic beaurocrats and judges to tell us how stupid we are and Shepard us around like a bunch of school kids.

Your comment about "unwashed masses" tells me everything about the basis of your opinion and proves my point more than anything I could say.

[yermom]

i'm no Constitutional law expert, but this is the way it works as far as i can tell. the Supreme Court doesn't just decide what to rule on, something has to get to them. this is how that happens.

if everything was up to the will of the people at large, we'd have President Camacho in no time

[Curly Bill]

i'm no Constitutional law expert, but this is the way it works as far as i can tell. the Supreme Court doesn't just decide what to rule on, something has to get to them. this is how that happens.

if everything was up to the will of the people at large, we'd have President Camacho in no time

Would he be better than Obammy? Cause if so, I'm in!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Would he be better than Obammy? Cause if so, I'm in!It IS up to the will of the people, and we DO have president Hussein, instead of Camacho. Would a president Camacho PRETEND to follow our laws, like Obeary, or just openly tell us the truth about his intentions?

[FaninAma]

i'm no Constitutional law expert, but this is the way it works as far as i can tell. the Supreme Court doesn't just decide what to rule on, something has to get to them. this is how that happens.

if everything was up to the will of the people at large, we'd have President Camacho in no time
You think a group of elitist dumbass judges would stop President Camacho from coming to power? What a laugh. The only power the judiciary actually has is the enforcement power of the executive branch which is now controlled by President Camacho. But now the main check on the executive branch, the legislative branch, has been so marginalized and trivialized by the other 2 branches that they could not possibly hope to Marshall the support of the citizens to stand against him.

That's my point. The strongest expression of government power should reside in the branch that is most accountable to we the people. Instead it is the weakest and that is a dangerous development. That is why Obama feels free to pick and choose which laws he chooses to enforce just like the judiciary acts ever more boldly in negating legislative authority. One only need to review the number of legislative laws that were declared unconstitutional in the first 165 years of the nation's history and how many have been voided by the courts in the last 45 years to realize just how common judicial activism has gotten.

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/JU/uncon/index.html

[TheHumanAlphabet]

can you remind me how government getting out of more people's personal lives is so terrible?

what basis do laws against gay marriage come from?

the Supreme Court is already leaning to this, so what does it matter how long some states hold out?

Yermom, can you remind me how a jurist would be allowed to so ignorantly confuse the Declaration of Independence with theConstitution and not be laughed out of a job?

[FaninAma]

All judges are not competent but they all have life long gigs:
http://www.propublica.org/article/life-tenure-for-federal-judges-raises-issues-of-senility-dementia

[yermom]

Yermom, can you remind me how a jurist would be allowed to so ignorantly confuse the Declaration of Independence with theConstitution and not be laughed out of a job?

You just racist. Those documents are obviously racially biased.

[badger]

Texas too. (http://www.chron.com/news/local/article/Texas-ban-on-gay-marriage-ruled-unconstitutional-5270099.php?cmpid=bna)

In case you're wondering about the judge...


Orlando Luis Garcia (1952) is a former Texas state legislator and a United States federal judge sitting on the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

Born in Jim Wells County, Texas, Garcia received a B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1975 and a J.D. from the University of Texas School of Law in 1978. He was in private practice in San Antonio, Texas from 1978–1990, and a Texas state representative from 1983-1991. From 1991 to 1992 he was a judge in the Texas Fourth Court of Appeals.

He was nominated by President Bill Clinton on November 19, 1993, to a seat which had been vacated by Emilio M. Garza over two years before. Garcia was confirmed by the United States Senate on March 10, 1994, and received his commission on March 11, 1994.

[OU_Sooners75]

Because a lot of them are just products of the liberal school system and do not use the legal rationality but instead allow their own personal political biases to make decisions. Not to mention a lot of them are dumb*sses.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/14/VA-Same-Sex-Marriage-Ruling-Confuses-Declaration-Of-Independence-With-Constitution

why does the misinformed opinion of one legal stooge who probably got her position by being a political lackey for a political party get to negate the will of a majority of the voters? The FFs really screwed up when they left the judiciary with so much power.....although I doubt they intended to do so.


Wait a minute. That is how the government is set up under the Constitution.

It's called checks and balances. What the lone judge does by ruling against the law makers is set in motion the law to be taken to appeals, then ultimately the SCOTUS. Appeals will likely put a stay to the lower courts decision. Then it will be taken infront of the High Court.

[Ton Loc]

Wait a minute. That is how the government is set up under the Constitution.

It's called checks and balances. What the lone judge does by ruling against the law makers is set in motion the law to be taken to appeals, then ultimately the SCOTUS. Appeals will likely put a stay to the lower courts decision. Then it will be taken infront of the High Court.

You mean what I learned since elementary school is how it is still done today? Awesome

I just wonder why the fuss about it now. They make decisions all the time that go against the majority. It sorta their thing. Surely, it can't be about the gays.

[FaninAma]

Wait a minute. That is how the government is set up under the Constitution.

It's called checks and balances. What the lone judge does by ruling against the law makers is set in motion the law to be taken to appeals, then ultimately the SCOTUS. Appeals will likely put a stay to the lower courts decision. Then it will be taken infront of the High Court.

No, the Constitution does not implicitly give the courts the ability to kill a duly passed law. The Madison v. Marbury decision did that and like idiots the other 2 branches allowed the judicial branch to get away with that tremendous power grab without a challenge.

ton Loc, **** the gays. I could give a **** if they get married but if they want to get married they need to go out and get a referendum passed.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

...do you really want the unwashed masses making American Idol type of decisions?

Its already happening. Just look at the doosh Afleck "testifying" to Congress about the Congo. My farts probably know more about the Congo than this leftist elitist...

[Ton Loc]

No, the Constitution does not implicitly give the courts the ability to kill a duly passed law. The Madison v. Marbury decision did that and like idiots the other 2 branches allowed the judicial branch to get away with that tremendous power grab without a challenge.

ton Loc, **** the gays. I could give a **** if they get married but if they want to get married they need to go out and get a referendum passed.

Word to your mother.

Regardless of your opinion on the gays, you're going to lose this argument or whatever this constant bitch fest is that a few of you constantly harp on. Please continue on though because as we all know constant whining and griping is always the way to get the result you want.

[SoonerBBall]

Gay marriage bans are an obvious violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and, thus, are unconstitutional.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

[FaninAma]

Word to your mother.

Regardless of your opinion on the gays, you're going to lose this argument or whatever this constant bitch fest is that a few of you constantly harp on. Please continue on though because as we all know constant whining and griping is always the way to get the result you want.

We'll see if the courts are allowed to continue down the murky road set out by Marbury v. Madison. I think the more the Democrats like Obama act unilaterally in ignoring statutory laws they disagree with the more you will see states and local governments doing the same to politically motivated court rulings. Court rulings only have the power that the executive branch is willing to use to enforce their edicts.

Obama and his idiot attorney general are setting a horrible precedent. I can see the day when a very conservative President or governor tells the court to GFI and then the liberals will be screaming like gut shot panthers.

[FaninAma]

Gay marriage bans are an obvious violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and, thus, are unconstitutional.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws


So, no limits on marriage between consenting adults....right?

And apparently today's politically motivated courts are very selective about which Constitutional amendments they uphold:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/02/26/Ninth-Circuit-Orders-Google-To-Pull-Innocence-of-Muslims-From-YouTube

The courts are full of politically motivated, power hungry, corrupt individuals just like all other government institutions. The difference is we can vote out the legislative idiots while the idiots in the court system serve for life.

[SoonerBBall]

So, no limits on marriage between consenting adults....right?

And apparently today's politically motivated courts are very selective about which Constitutional amendments they uphold:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/02/26/Ninth-Circuit-Orders-Google-To-Pull-Innocence-of-Muslims-From-YouTube

The courts are full of politically motivated, power hungry, corrupt individuals just like all other government institutions. The difference is we can vote out the legislative idiots while the idiots in the court system serve for life.

Correct.

I'm not commenting on the silliness of that censorship case, which is also clearly unconstitutional. Mine was a comment specifically on gay marriage bans. It doesn't matter whether the legislature enacts the law or a majority of voters approve of it, unconstitutional is unconstitutional and it is a federal judge's job to make that ruling.

[Ton Loc]

Correct.

I'm not commenting on the silliness of that censorship case, which is also clearly unconstitutional. Mine was a comment specifically on gay marriage bans. It doesn't matter whether the legislature enacts the law or a majority of voters approve of it, unconstitutional is unconstitutional and it is a federal judge's job to make that ruling.

That's my point.
Want to argue, bitch, complain about the courts crapping all over the constitution? Go ahead, just pick a case where it actually makes sense.

[FaninAma]

That's my point.
Want to argue, bitch, complain about the courts crapping all over the constitution? Go ahead, just pick a case where it actually makes sense.
That's because you agree with the court ruling. I would be of the same opinion if the courts had ruled againstt he legalization of marijuana statutes passed by referendum. The people have a right to establish societal norms without a group of elitist, psuedo-intellectual judges playing mommy and daddy.

Again, the day will come when DC becomes so out of touch with a large part of the country that we will see outright defiance of what they tell us to do.

[SoonerBBall]

That's because you agree with the court ruling. I would be of the same opinion if the courts had ruled againstt he legalization of marijuana statutes passed by referendum. The people have a right to establish societal norms without a group of elitist, psuedo-intellectual judges playing mommy and daddy.

Again, the day will come when DC becomes so out of touch with a large part of the country that we will see outright defiance of what they tell us to do.

It has nothing to do with agreeing with the ruling or not. The gay marriage ban is clearly unconstitutional. It isn't some kind of legal gray area like the little girl in Boston being held against her and her family's will by dint of some psychiatric crap.

Also, societal norms aren't legislated. They are adopted by a society by choice. If society chooses to legislate something in this manner then it risks having it reviewed and declared unconstitutional. The system worked as intended.

[FaninAma]

It has nothing to do with agreeing with the ruling or not. The gay marriage ban is clearly unconstitutional. It isn't some kind of legal gray area like the little girl in Boston being held against her and her family's will by dint of some psychiatric crap.

Also, societal norms aren't legislated. They are adopted by a society by choice. If society chooses to legislate something in this manner then it risks having it reviewed and declared unconstitutional. The system worked as intended.
It is absurdly stupid to say the ban is "clearly unconstitutional". It has been the law of the land for 200 years and not overturned by any judges during that period. Even the all-mighty Constitutional scholar himself, Barak Obama, supported DOMA up until 2 years ago when he suddenly had a change of heart for political reasons. Even now the SCOTUS waffled on the DOMA review and the provisions they struck down were by a 5-4 split vote. So to say it is clearly unconstitutional is just your biased opinion which in turn is based on an elitist attitude.

[SoonerorLater]

It is absurdly stupid to say the ban is "clearly unconstitutional". It has been the law of the land for 200 years and not overturned by any judges during that period. Even the all-mighty Constitutional scholar himself, Barak Obama, supported DOMA up until 2 years ago when he suddenly had a change of heart for political reasons. Even now the SCOTUS waffled on the DOMA review and the provisions they struck down were by a 5-4 split vote. So to say it is clearly unconstitutional is just your biased opinion which in turn is based on an elitist attitude.

You would have to torture the 14th ammendment to come up with the conclusion that states must provide a licensing agreement for same sex marrige. Because individuals engage in a wide variety of activities (not just homosexual) doesn't mean the state has to make laws to accomodate those behaviors. That isn't what the 14th ammendment is about.

[Ton Loc]

That's because you agree with the court ruling. I would be of the same opinion if the courts had ruled againstt he legalization of marijuana statutes passed by referendum. The people have a right to establish societal norms without a group of elitist, psuedo-intellectual judges playing mommy and daddy.

Again, the day will come when DC becomes so out of touch with a large part of the country that we will see outright defiance of what they tell us to do.

Of course I agree with it. The people have a right to establish laws, norms, whatever....but if those established things are unconstitutional then its too damn bad. It won't be long and we'll find out where the recent weed laws stand.

I'd love to see an outright defiance by the people, but we're way too lazy and easily distracted for that to happen anytime soon. It will take something way more important than weed and gay marriage to make that happen.

[FaninAma]

Ton Loc, I agree with most of what you said. I think the nation is moving toward
approving gay marriage. I actually think that when judges impose their will on the
electorate it slows down the process of people changing their views on their own.

One of the most divisive issues our society has faced is the abortion battle. It will
never be resolved by the courts. I actually think that abortion would have been
legal to some extent in most states had the issue been left up to a vote of the citizens
and we wouldn't have the deep divisions we have now.

[yermom]

It is absurdly stupid to say the ban is "clearly unconstitutional". It has been the law of the land for 200 years and not overturned by any judges during that period. Even the all-mighty Constitutional scholar himself, Barak Obama, supported DOMA up until 2 years ago when he suddenly had a change of heart for political reasons. Even now the SCOTUS waffled on the DOMA review and the provisions they struck down were by a 5-4 split vote. So to say it is clearly unconstitutional is just your biased opinion which in turn is based on an elitist attitude.

has it been the law for 200 years? when does the Constitution mention marriage? were the feds involved before the IRS? what did Thomas Jefferson say about same sex marriage?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

what did Thomas Jefferson say about same sex marriage?

He said it's cool as long as they legalize pot.

[SoonerBBall]

He said it's cool as long as they legalize pot.

That is why he was a great man.

[yermom]

more activist judges:

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/03/21/michigan-same-sex-marriage-ban/

i like this part:


Judge Friedman was nominated by President Ronald Reagan as a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan in February 1988.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Or Mr. de Toqueville could have organized a grass roots education and voter mobilization movement and changed the unjust law by democratic legislative processes. The reason we are ruled by non- elected beaurocrats and judges is because the legislative branch has been decimated by repeated power grabs by the other two branches of government.

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but this is absolutely, finger-pointingly hilarious, considering the quote is lifted DIRECTLY from the chapter in "Democracy in America" where de Tocqueville is essentially calling the youthful United States a piece of crap because it had no checks and balances against a tyranny of the majority.

A tyranny of the majority being an unchecked, populist driven representative body, otherwise known as the Legislature.

Interesting, wouldn't you say?

[Sooner8th]

more activist judges:

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/03/21/michigan-same-sex-marriage-ban/

i like this part:

I'm seeing "activist judges" being defined by any judge who does not support conservative positions. Not a word was spoken when the Supreme Court delivered the most activist judge ruling maybe ever - Citizens United. Unleashing a flood of money from who knows where to sway elections and buy entire state legislatures and the governor. The judiciary is in place to protect the rights of American citizens from having their rights taken away by the majority. Federal judges are appointed for life so they can judge by law not by politics, even if you disagree with their rulings.

[FaninAma]

I'm seeing "activist judges" being defined by any judge who does not support conservative positions. Not a word was spoken when the Supreme Court delivered the most activist judge ruling maybe ever - Citizens United. Unleashing a flood of money from who knows where to sway elections and buy entire state legislatures and the governor. The judiciary is in place to protect the rights of American citizens from having their rights taken away by the majority. Federal judges are appointed for life so they can judge by law not by politics, even if you disagree with their rulings.
That wasn't a conservative ruling. Wall Street contributes as much if not more to the Democrats as they do to the GOP. Labor Unions contribute almost all to the Democrats. Big money doesn't favor either party. They favor the ruling class in DC. and it is a perfect example of the courts placing the wishes of special interests over the welfare of general society as a whole.

So, if the Supreme Court strikes down the lone activist judges' ruling on gay marriage will
you then admit they were acting in an activist, elitist way?

When judges negate the will of the people as frequently as they do now they erode the faith and confidence and respect of the people for the judicial branch of government.

[Sooner8th]

That wasn't a conservative ruling. Wall Street contributes as much if not more to the Democrats as they do to the GOP. Labor Unions contribute almost all to the Democrats. Big money doesn't favor either party. They favor the ruling class in DC. and it is a perfect example of the courts placing the wishes of special interests over the welfare of general society as a whole.

So, if the Supreme Court strikes down the lone activist judges' ruling on gay marriage will
you then admit they were acting in an activist, elitist way?

When judges negate the will of the people as frequently as they do now they erode the faith and confidence and respect of the people for the judicial branch of government.

Where do you get this stuff at?

It wasn't a conservative ruling? Since when?

Majority:
Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas

Dissent:
Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayo

Big money greatly helps conservatives - the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson.

An ABC–Washington Post poll conducted February 4–8, 2010, showed that 80% of those surveyed opposed (and 65% strongly opposed) the Citizens United ruling, which the poll described as saying "corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections". Additionally, 72% supported "an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns". The poll showed large majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

more activist judges:

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2014/03/21/michigan-same-sex-marriage-ban/

i like this part:

who knows, perhaps he was nominated as a least offensive candidate for the left leaning MI at the time. While President's may want to nominate like minded,d they may not get
approved, except until now that Lying Bastard Reid changed the rules to ram down their candidates while they still have a majority...

[FaninAma]

Apparently the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans overturned the Texas District Federal judge's ruling that struck down Texas' new abortion restrictions. Now it appears the 4 liberal members of the SCOTUS are very anxious to review(and most likeley attempt to overturn)the 5th Circuit Court's ruling.

This series of events seems to indicate to me that the judiciary is divided along political lines as much as the general electorate and their rulings really aren't based in law or the Constitution but rather on their political bias. Seeing that this is the case why in the hell should these elitist judges personal political opinions and views outweigh the will of the electorate.

[FaninAma]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but this is absolutely, finger-pointingly hilarious, considering the quote is lifted DIRECTLY from the chapter in "Democracy in America" where de Tocqueville is essentially calling the youthful United States a piece of crap because it had no checks and balances against a tyranny of the majority.

A tyranny of the majority being an unchecked, populist driven representative body, otherwise known as the Legislature.

Interesting, wouldn't you say?
Care to provide direct quotes where de Toqueville calls young America " a piece of crap" ?

So I'll count you as one of the individuals who prefers to be ruled by tyranny of the judicial elitist majority The judiciary is just as politically driven as the electorate if not more so.

[FaninAma]

Where do you get this stuff at?

It wasn't a conservative ruling? Since when?

Majority:
Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas

Dissent:
Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayo

Big money greatly helps conservatives - the Kochs and Sheldon Adelson.

An ABC–Washington Post poll conducted February 4–8, 2010, showed that 80% of those surveyed opposed (and 65% strongly opposed) the Citizens United ruling, which the poll described as saying "corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections". Additionally, 72% supported "an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns". The poll showed large majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents.

Everything that comes from the GOP and so-called conservative side doesn't mean it isn't a progressive, big government action or ruling. BTW, i think the campaign finance law did not include labor unions in it's contribution restrictions so as a law it sucked but I would have preferred a legislative fix instead of a judicial ruling that in essence was the same as legislating from the bench.

[badger]

More activist judging! (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/usworld/court-hands-setback-to-texas-abortion-law-critics/article_53fc9110-b68b-11e3-9c6a-001a4bcf6878.html)

;)

[FaninAma]

More activist judging! (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/usworld/court-hands-setback-to-texas-abortion-law-critics/article_53fc9110-b68b-11e3-9c6a-001a4bcf6878.html)

;)
I cited that ruling earlier in the thread. The question I now propose is which judge or group of judges were following the Constitution and which judge or group of judges were ruling based on their personal political biases?

Was it the lone Federal District judge who originally struck down the law?

Was it the Circuit Court of Appeals( which ruled unanimously, btw) that reinstated the law?

Or will it be the 4 liberal judges on the SCOTUS who are chomping at the bit to overturn the 5th circuit court's ruling?

My assertion is that since these judges are all over the place with their rulings there is no possible way they all are making rulings based on the Constitution. My further assertion is that they are ALL politically motivated meaning their opinions should never usurp the will of the majority of the electorate.

So essentially you are replacing the so-called tyranny of the majority with the tyranny of the elitist judiciary, most of whom operate on purely political biases.