As many of you may know, California is going to have a popular vote on an amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage, in an attempt to overturn the state supreme court’s recent ruling that gay same-sex marriage is legal in the state. This is known as Proposition 8.
I strongly urge all Californians to vote NO on this proposition. This proposition, if passed, will take away hard-won equal rights, violating the core tenet of America: “liberty and justice for all”.
After work I drove past a large group of people with big signs saying SAY YES TO PROPOSITION 8
The YES vote is leading according to indicators.
Im mailing my ballot in today saying NO as mentioned before by myself.
In Berkeley?
I’ve seen polls saying the opposite. I hope there’s massive turnout among youth voters, who tend to support gay marriage.
I’m wondering what can be done if, heaven forbid, this proposition would pass, to nullify it.
In Berkeley?
I’ve seen polls saying the opposite. I hope there’s massive turnout among youth voters, who tend to support gay marriage.
I’m wondering what can be done if, heaven forbid, this proposition would pass, to nullify it.[/quote]
NO in Concord. I would think in Berkeley the signs would be saying VOTE NO TO PROP 8
[quote=“Chris”]As many of you may know, California is going to have a popular vote on an amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage, in an attempt to overturn the state supreme court’s recent ruling that gay same-sex marriage is legal in the state. This is known as Proposition 8.
I strongly urge all Californians to vote NO on this proposition. This proposition, if passed, will take away hard-won equal rights, violating the core tenet of America: “liberty and justice for all”.[/quote]
God I hate these things. We have one going on in Illinois but not with gay marriage. It’s to have a constitutional convention, but the way it’s going to be worded on the ballot is misleading or confusing.
Chris, you’re saying to vote yes not to overturn or no to preserve the ruling?
Yes, the double negatives can be confusing. I know they do this on purpose.
I’m saying to vote No on Prop 8. This is because passage of the proposition would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Another way to think of it is a common slogan I’ve been seeing: No on Proposition H8te!
(Regarding the double negatives, it brings me to a pet peeve about the way court rulings are reported in the news: “Supreme Court declines to overturn appeals court ruling overturning a lower court’s overruling of a ban on not blah blah blah…” Arrrrrggghhhh! Just tell us what the effect of the ruling is!)
[quote=“Chris”]Yes, the double negatives can be confusing. I know they do this on purpose.
I’m saying to vote No on Prop 8. Passage of the proposition would eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.
Another way to think of it is a common slogan I’ve been seeing: No on Proposition H8te![/quote]
Got it.
[quote]
(Regarding the double negatives, it brings me to a pet peeve about the way court rulings are reported in the news: “Supreme Court declines to overturn appeals court ruling overturning a lower court’s overruling of a ban on not blah blah blah…” Arrrrrggghhhh! Just tell us what the effect of the ruling is!)[/quote]
Got that too. I’ll keep that in mind while writing in my courts and the law course 
Democrats against democracy?
Democrats against democracy?[/quote]
Human rights should never be subject to vote. Even if 99% of a population wants to take away the rights of a group of people, it should not be done.
Equal rights for all means just that: Equal rights for ALL.
At the time of Loving v. Virginia, some 90% of the US populace opposed interracial marriage. The court did exactly the right thing, despite being against the will of the people. Tyranny of the majority is an anathema to democracy.
Democrats against democracy?[/quote]
If you don’t understand how sometimes the basic human rights of the minority outweigh the will of the majority, you have an overly simplistic misunderstanding of democracy. Democracy does not equal mob rule.
Dear Q,
I have a solid grasp of how our republican democracy is supposed to work. And I often go back and re-read Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 10.
My point was simply that the proper way to deal with such weighty matters is not via a democratic vote of the populous, or by activist judges on the bench, but rather by legislation.
In fact, it does. In a pure democracy, 51% of the people can vote to shit in breakfasts of the other 49% of the people.
This is precisely the reason that I do not believe that the issue of gay marriage should be put to a vote by “the people”.
[quote=“Tigerman”]
My point was simply that the proper way to deal with such weighty matters is not via a democratic vote of the populous, or by activist judges on the bench, but rather by legislation.[/quote]
And if the legislation violates human rights?
When judges uphold basic human rights by striking down laws that violate them, that is not judicial activism; that is judicial duty.
[quote=“Chris”][quote=“Tigerman”]
My point was simply that the proper way to deal with such weighty matters is not via a democratic vote of the populous, or by activist judges on the bench, but rather by legislation.[/quote]
And if the legislation violates human rights?
When judges uphold basic human rights by striking down laws that violate them, that is not judicial activism; that is judicial duty.[/quote]
Judges don’t even agree when human life begins, much less what human rights are. When you advocate a system of government in which a few unelected officials are empowered to not only be the supreme judiciary but, effectively, the supreme legislature you’ve entered Cheney territory, albeit from the left fringe of the political spectrum. Why even bother having a national legislature if the Supreme Court is packed with “judicial activists” who effectively turn it into a Politburo? To keep up appearances perhaps? Or maybe it’s too much workload.
Oh wow.
No, that is judicial activism and it is not a judge’s duty.
You’ve heard of the Constitution, right?
And spook is right (in his post above).
— If what Chris meant is that a federal judge has a duty to strike down a law that violates the rights set out in the Constitution, then I agree with Chris.
— If what Chris meant is that a federal judge has a duty to strike down a law that violates the judge’s own personal opinion about what constitutes “basic human rights”, then I agree with Spook and Tigerman.
The problem, I guess, is that judges never strike down laws by saying “I, personally, just don’t think this law is right. So I’m striking it down.” They always say that they are striking it down because --while it doesn’t violate the precise letter of the Constitution-- it violates some “spirit” or “penumbra” or such like that the judge considers to be embodied in the document.
And at that point you are generally back to the political question about whether you agree with the policy result that is advanced by the judge’s decision.
If you agree with the policy result, you consider the judge to be doing his/her duty in interpreting the Constitution. If you disagree with the policy result, you consider it to be “judicial activism”.
In fact, it does. In a pure democracy, 51% of the people can vote to shit in breakfasts of the other 49% of the people.
This is precisely the reason that I do not believe that the issue of gay marriage should be put to a vote by “the people”.[/quote]
That’s a very narrow and simplistic view of democracy, every properly functioning democracy has to have some protection for minorities built in. The denial of civil rights to black people was not “democratic” just because it was passed in legislation. Requiring legislation rather than a vote by “the people” really offers no protection at all.
Oh wow.
No, that is judicial activism and it is not a judge’s duty.
You’ve heard of the Constitution, right?
[/quote]
It is the judges’ job to strike down unconstitutional laws. That is not activism. One of the functions of the Constitution is to protects human rights and preserve liberty.
That has nothing to do with the judge’s opinion. The judge has to obey the Constitution, and the Constitution guarantees human rights.
In fact, it does. In a pure democracy, 51% of the people can vote to shit in breakfasts of the other 49% of the people.
This is precisely the reason that I do not believe that the issue of gay marriage should be put to a vote by “the people”.[/quote]
No, it isn’t. By “pure democracy” I mean a “direct democracy”. In a direct democracy, the majority of those eligible to vote make the rules.
I’m not arguing that blacks, gays, women, men or any other group should be oppressed because a majority decides to do so. I am very happy that the US system of democracy, a republican democracy, allows majority rule with protection of the minority.
But your idea of what is “proper” is an opinion. The fact is, in a pure (direct) democracy the majority rules. Whether that is “proper” or not often depends on the size and nature (homogenous vs. heterogenous) of the voting population. Jefferson very much liked direct democracies, but he understood that they usually work well, or “properly” only when the voting population is relatively small and relatively homogenous. Because the US was even in 1789 relatively large and the voting population was relatively heterogenous, the founding fathers agreed to form our government as a republican democracy, in order to prevent mob rule as warned by Madison.
[quote=“Hobbes”]— If what Chris meant is that a federal judge has a duty to strike down a law that violates the rights set out in the Constitution, then I agree with Chris.
— If what Chris meant is that a federal judge has a duty to strike down a law that violates the judge’s own personal opinion about what constitutes “basic human rights”, then I agree with Spook and Tigerman.
The problem, I guess, is that judges never strike down laws by saying “I, personally, just don’t think this law is right. So I’m striking it down.” They always say that they are striking it down because --while it doesn’t violate the precise letter of the Constitution-- it violates some “spirit” or “penumbra” or such like that the judge considers to be embodied in the document.
And at that point you are generally back to the political question about whether you agree with the policy result that is advanced by the judge’s decision.
If you agree with the policy result, you consider the judge to be doing his/her duty in interpreting the Constitution. If you disagree with the policy result, you consider it to be “judicial activism”.[/quote]
[quote]Courts should not intrude into areas of policy making reserved by the Constitution to the political branches … To the extent the term judicial activism is used to describe unjustified intrusions by the judiciary into the realm of policy making, the criticism is well-founded.
– Chief Justice John Roberts during his confirmation hearings[/quote]
That’s the extent of my objection to “judicial activism” – unelected officials making policy, not whether or not I agree with the results of their extra-legislative policy making motivated by the desire to make the world a better place without the hindrances of the democratic process.
Judges are the umpires of the system in a healthy democracy. When they begin intruding on the rule-making process that’s concentrating too much self-appointed power in the hands of individuals and it’s inevitable they’ll be corrupted by it and society along with them.