Why Lone Federal Judges Shouldn't Be Overturning The Voters

[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/li...ility-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.

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-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.

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/2...s-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/2...s-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.