electricity-lambs

FanimeCon 2019 Forums

Advanced search  

News:

Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8  (Read 13654 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ewu

  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2553
  • Insert cool text here
    • View Profile
CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« on: November 25, 2008, 11:47:43 AM »

So should the CA Supreme court be able to review Prop. 8? What implications does it have? Can/should a court "usurp" public opinion?

also:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122757137423754669.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
Since its a WSJ article it may be gone in a few days from today (11/25)
Logged
Eric Wu
FanimeCon Chairman
FanimeCon Forums Moderator

ericATfanimeDOTcom

AnimeEmperor

  • Prince of Post
  • Posts: 896
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2008, 03:05:37 PM »

Just let them get married already, this should have been taken care of so long ago....it's just going to go back and forth until eventually they're allowed to anyway.
Logged

ewu

  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2553
  • Insert cool text here
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2008, 03:12:21 PM »

See, that's not the issue at hand. The people voted for a proposition (albiet a legislativly flawed propositon) and made their intent known. Is it right or wrong for the court system to be able to counter the wants of the majority? Granted, an extrapolated 26% of the CA voting eligible population voted yes; not to mention the numerous residents of CA that are not eligible to vote.
Logged
Eric Wu
FanimeCon Chairman
FanimeCon Forums Moderator

ericATfanimeDOTcom

cortana

  • Full Metal Post
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2008, 04:22:43 PM »

The state constitution of CA requires equal protection under the law. That said, any right that has been granted to ONE group, cannot be restricted from another person, except by a 2/3 vote of the legislature.

So basically, that means if anyone can get married, you can't stop another group via a ballot referendum.
Logged

ewu

  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2553
  • Insert cool text here
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2008, 04:56:34 PM »

The current prop. 8 legislation has nothing to do with equal protection. As much as the law1 may or may not state, supported by McFadden v. Jordan2, that the propostion was addressed through the incorrect channels. What are the effects of disenfranchising the voters as well as going against an opinion that was clearly conveyed by the voters?

1http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18
2McFadden v. Jordan (1948) 32 Cal.2d 330, 347
Logged
Eric Wu
FanimeCon Chairman
FanimeCon Forums Moderator

ericATfanimeDOTcom

AnimeEmperor

  • Prince of Post
  • Posts: 896
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2008, 05:03:10 PM »

See, that's not the issue at hand. The people voted for a proposition (albiet a legislativly flawed propositon) and made their intent known. Is it right or wrong for the court system to be able to counter the wants of the majority? Granted, an extrapolated 26% of the CA voting eligible population voted yes; not to mention the numerous residents of CA that are not eligible to vote.
I understand what the issue is, I don't care. Sometimes things just need to get done.....
Logged

ewu

  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2553
  • Insert cool text here
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2008, 05:15:56 PM »

I understand what the issue is, I don't care. Sometimes things just need to get done.....

The intent of the thread was to see what what people thought about the court challenging the vote of the people.

And of course things need to get done, but they must be done legally....As much as I love vigilantism and anarchy...but then I hope to make a living on people following the law:)
Logged
Eric Wu
FanimeCon Chairman
FanimeCon Forums Moderator

ericATfanimeDOTcom

Nyxyin

  • Inu-Posta
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2008, 03:17:23 AM »

Our founders were careful to set up multiple branches of government and a system of checks and balances as a precaution.  The courts are supposed to act as a check and balance to the legislature.  It's legal, necessary, and expected for them to strike down bad laws.  I still think the check and balance precaution is a great idea.  It's not anarchy or vigilantism.  It's a fundamental part of our government, dating all the way back to when it was originally conceived, working exactly the way it should.
Logged

ewu

  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2553
  • Insert cool text here
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2008, 08:37:58 AM »

See, prop 8 never touched the legislature. It was a public referendum. We do live in a democracy, albeit representative, but the law offers a route for direct democracy. What is the impact of the courts countering and reversing the vote of CA's people?
Logged
Eric Wu
FanimeCon Chairman
FanimeCon Forums Moderator

ericATfanimeDOTcom

Steve.Young

  • Senior Moderator
  • ***
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1523
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2008, 09:47:08 AM »

It means that you would have to amend the constitution in order for the courts to NOT reverse the public referendum every single time.
Logged
Director of Marketing
Staff Moderator - Fanime Forums.

Please PM me with any questions, comments, or concerns.

Steve[AT]Fanime[DOT]Com

ewu

  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 2553
  • Insert cool text here
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #10 on: November 26, 2008, 09:52:10 AM »

so before 2005 you were ugly? Thanks for actually reading what I have said:P

I guess that is where it lies. The court will determine that prop 8 was not correctly proposed. Prop 8 supporters will lobby to have such a revision passed through CA legislature and if it does, it will go to the vote of the people. Should it pass then the CASC will then strike it down as a violation of the equal-protection clause.

That's a whole lot of the government saying that public is wrong. Its too bad that to protect people's rights we need to disenfranchise so many voters. But, they do need to realize in the end, wrong is wrong, regardless of public opinon.
Logged
Eric Wu
FanimeCon Chairman
FanimeCon Forums Moderator

ericATfanimeDOTcom

Nyxyin

  • Inu-Posta
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #11 on: November 26, 2008, 05:22:22 PM »

BTW, Steve is the only one that addressed my question in my Prop. 8 thread.
I am not a lawyer.  I was under the impression that the legislature includes all entities capable of making laws.  I was taught that the government breaks down into "legislative" (which creates laws), "executive" (which makes laws official), and "judicial" (which interprets the laws and resolves conflicts when they're inconsistent).  I think most people share this view of the world with me because that's what most are taught in middle school and high school.  This is why I assumed that voters trying to pass laws would fall under "legislative", and I assumed that everybody else is starting from this point as well.

To the best of my knowledge, I addressed your intent of the thread ("to see what people thought about the court challenging the vote of the people") directly by saying "The courts are supposed to act as a check and balance to the legislature."  I thought "voters passing laws" falls under "legislature".  As I'm finding out in other threads, it's very likely that you're having difficulties getting people to address your point (from your point of view) because the people simply do not have the necessary background to do so.

If voters passing laws does not count as legislation (which Webster defines as, "the exercise of the power and function of making rules (as laws) that have the force of authority by virtue of their promulgation by an official organ of a state or other organization"), then I stand corrected.

So, incorporating what you said about voters not being legislature then...  The US is a representative government, not a democracy.  So, the public vote is more for advisement purposes (and general entertainment) than the Word of Law.  Voters aren't disenfranchised; voters were never that far enfranchised to begin with.  The representative government setup was the founders knowing that the majority isn't always right.

(Edit:  I believe I failed to explicitly state that, in as far as the voters given the ability to pass laws, I still think they count, in spirit, as legislature, so the original checks and balances plan of the founders still works out.  Public opinion -- or any other potential player for that matter -- was never intended to have unchecked absolute authority.  When they created our government, the founders already knew that they had a problem with slavery, and they had always intended to protect us from cases of absolute tyranny by the majority.  Nobody is being disenfranchised here: nobody was ever so far enfranchised to begin with.)
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 05:44:40 PM by Nyxyin »
Logged

Steve.Young

  • Senior Moderator
  • ***
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1523
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #12 on: November 26, 2008, 09:36:58 PM »

You didn't know we were a representative government? Really? lol...I thought they taught this stuff to you guys in high school.
Logged
Director of Marketing
Staff Moderator - Fanime Forums.

Please PM me with any questions, comments, or concerns.

Steve[AT]Fanime[DOT]Com

Nyxyin

  • Inu-Posta
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #13 on: November 26, 2008, 09:58:13 PM »

You didn't know we were a representative government? Really? lol...I thought they taught this stuff to you guys in high school.
Technically, I didn't know that ewu didn't count voter law-making as part of the legislative branch.  I knew we're a representative government.  I just assumed that, when voters pass laws, they counted as the "legislative" branch (as a concept).  It's an irrelevant nit that voters aren't part of the strict definition of "legislature".  The concept of the "legislative" part makes laws.  When voters make laws, they count as part of the "legislative" part, then the checks and balances work when the courts overturn laws.  When voters don't count as "legislative", they don't get to make laws.

Your post is also ad hominem and has nothing of substance to add to the topic.  I thought people were supposed to be interested in "serious business" here, not in just having everybody agree with whatever the "in crowd" says.  I answered the question, and I explained how my answer directly addressed the question.  I do admit this group has given me an invaluable first-hand learning experience about the social dynamics of pre-WWII Germany, so I will drop the racism conversation.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 10:03:25 PM by Nyxyin »
Logged

PyronIkari

  • Post in the Shell: SAC
  • Posts: 2001
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #14 on: November 26, 2008, 10:08:44 PM »

... Voting != Legislative branch.

... ... ...

... ... ... ...
Logged

Nyxyin

  • Inu-Posta
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2008, 10:39:51 PM »

... Voting != Legislative branch.
No, voting itself is not part of the legislative branch.  Popular voting itself is just for advisory and entertainment purposes.  Any time laws are made, it's conceptually legislation, even if it happened to come into existence because of voters instead of the official legislature.  The judicial branch acts as a check and balance against legislation, so it is all part of the original plan.

Edit: Even if laws created by voters count as a fourth branch of government, it still would not be an overriding fourth branch of government.  All four branches should still act as checks and balances against each other so that no one entity gets too powerful.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 10:45:51 PM by Nyxyin »
Logged

PyronIkari

  • Post in the Shell: SAC
  • Posts: 2001
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #16 on: November 26, 2008, 10:51:15 PM »

No, voting itself is not part of the legislative branch.  Popular voting itself is just for advisory and entertainment purposes.  Any time laws are made, it's conceptually legislation, even if it happened to come into existence because of voters instead of the official legislature.  The judicial branch acts as a check and balance against legislation, so it is all part of the original plan.

Edit: Even if laws created by voters count as a fourth branch of government, it still would not be an overriding fourth branch of government.  All four branches should still act as checks and balances against each other so that no one entity gets too powerful.


First off... a question. Why, in every one of your post, do you post like you're speaking to students that don't know anything. You post basic information that we all already know... BUT NEVER ADDRESS ANYTHING ABOUT THE POINT OF WHAT WAS MADE OR BEING MADE.

Let me quote...

Quote
I didn't know that ewu didn't count voter law-making as part of the legislative branch.

Because it's not. You even answered that in your reply to me.
Logged

Nyxyin

  • Inu-Posta
  • Gender: Female
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #17 on: November 26, 2008, 11:26:55 PM »

First off... a question. Why, in every one of your post, do you post like you're speaking to students that don't know anything. You post basic information that we all already know... BUT NEVER ADDRESS ANYTHING ABOUT THE POINT OF WHAT WAS MADE OR BEING MADE.

Let me quote...

Quote
I didn't know that ewu didn't count voter law-making as part of the legislative branch.
Because it's not. You even answered that in your reply to me.
The original questions are "So should the CA Supreme court be able to review Prop. 8? What implications does it have? Can/should a court 'usurp' public opinion?" and "what people thought about the court challenging the vote of the people".  My response is, "There are no implications to the court reviewing Prop 8.  It's not 'usurping' public opinion because the courts were always intended to check and balance the other branches of government.  It has no implications other than the founders were right and are still right.  The court challenging the vote of the people is always what was intended.  That's what I've been trying to say all along.  I've been addressing what people are saying, but people seem to need more and more simplistic explanations for people to even begin to understand.

My original position is still the same, just with a slight wording change.  The edit was explicit acknowledgment of ewu's input, changing the phrasing of "legislature/legislation" to "fourth branch of government".  It's an insignificant detail that doesn't render my original point invalid: the courts are a normal and intended check and balance to the other branches of government.
Logged

Steve.Young

  • Senior Moderator
  • ***
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 1523
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #18 on: November 26, 2008, 11:31:45 PM »

My posts are Ad hominem? *Shakes head* Whatever...

On another note, I suggest people go read up on what a Referendum is and what it takes to amend the State Constitution, it gives a better perspective/background on how Prop 8 works.
Logged
Director of Marketing
Staff Moderator - Fanime Forums.

Please PM me with any questions, comments, or concerns.

Steve[AT]Fanime[DOT]Com

PyronIkari

  • Post in the Shell: SAC
  • Posts: 2001
    • View Profile
Re: CA Supreme Court review of Prop. 8
« Reply #19 on: November 26, 2008, 11:35:52 PM »

-_- It's not that what you say needs to be simplified...

It's that the two things HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

The molecular build of x is capable because of y, which makes the consistency more useful than a different form as found in G.

WHY DON'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND I LIKE CORN FLAKES?!?!??!?!

Half of the shit you say never corresponds to the other crap you say, and some how they're supposed to mean the same thing?

But you did say something correct...

You are not a lawyer.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
 

Page created in 0.084 seconds with 24 queries.