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-Governm...h-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?