MyDD :: Conn. ruling: when laws have no meaning (Hello Bush v. Gore)

Conn. ruling: when laws have no meaning (Hello Bush v. Gore)

by yellowdem1129, Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 07:33:33 AM EST

Those here know I obviously disagree with the Conneticut court ruling forcing their personal opinion on the citizens.

I find it unbelievable that the governor (a republican) said that she believes that the public disagrees with the ruling, but nothing can/should be done about it.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision -- either legislatively or by amending the state constitution -- will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling."

The question for democrats, and so-called progressives is:
Do you want to live in a country where 1 vote by an unelected government official can over-ride the will of the people?

Do you want to make it normal as in Bush v Gore where judicial decisions can be predicted based on political leanings?

If you disagreed with Bush v Gore why not try to be consistent?

I know this site and many on the left often don't think of the consequences of tactics and principle but think if:

a judge found a constitutional right of any property tax payer to use their money for religious schools instead of the public schools if that's their choice?

a judge found a constitutional right ot fairness and forced npr to allow right-wingers on their air for 50% of the time.

a judge found that their state constitution protected unborn children and that their state superceded the federal government?

It goes on and on.

These issues weren't in the states' constitutions. They were not thought about at the time.

Yet, we have judges inventing legal rationale to promote their personal veiwpoint.

Many of you here agree with their view, so it's ok?

Find me the judge that agrees with gay marriage personally but doesn't try to invent legal reasoning, or one that disagrees with abortion rights but honestly finds a right to privacy.

They would be honest judges.

If the judiciary is really just a rouse for political hacks then we will be in danger of losing our country at some point.

Right now, the people respect judicial rulings for the most part because of the credibility the instiution has.

But, a string of political decisions can change that.

Bush v. Gore was very political. I along with most people here disagreed with it, because the judges (both sides) used reasoning they have never used in the past and since.

If you truly believe in same sex marriage then let the people decide. Sadly, some will agree to it. In that case, the burden would be on people like me to change their minds.

But to invent constitutional issues that take power away from the people it is wrong.

Tags: craig farmer, barack obama, newliberals, democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment

Educate yourself. (none / 0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._ Madison

When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?

by Jess81 on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 07:44:58 AM EST

Re: (none / 0)

You opened with this statement:
Those here know I obviously disagree with the Conneticut court ruling forcing their personal opinion on the citizens.

The premise that government should ever have been in the business of telling people who they may and may not love fails the Constitutional test. Hence the courts decision corrects a long standing error.

It just baffles the living shit out of me why anyone would give a rat's ass about such private matters. Bravo to the Court, and BOO to you.

"But not me personally were those cheers for"

by QTG on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 07:49:01 AM EST

Re: (2.00 / 1)

Near the end of your diary, you say this:

If you truly believe in same sex marriage then let the people decide.

Who approved your choice of mate? Did you decide as a couple, or did you put the union to a vote of your neighbors before proceeding down the aisle?

Your prejudice is your private right. Enjoy it, by all means, along with your right to spew it. Even though I could make a strong argument for silencing such hateful speech, I would not do that. What you choose to do in your private life is your choice, and you can publicly speak freely about it if you like. I support your rights, but reject entirely your illogical desire to deny others the freedom to associate with whom they want and to deny others the right to be happy.

God made me the "perfect American": Hard Working, White, Married Once, Still Married, Father of Two Beautiful Children, Never Arrested, and a Viet Nam Era Veteran. But most importantly, he made me tolerant, humble, and totally devoid of the presumption that I get to tell others who they are allowed to marry.

"But not me personally were those cheers for"

by QTG on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 08:23:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So if a 1000 people jumped (2.00 / 1)

Its a matter constitutionality, not people's prejudices. Just more redstate talking points about some perceived slights because a court ruled in a progressive manner.

Slippery slope appeal to emotion, not logic.

I might be crazy... but are you seeing what I'm seeing?

by mydailydrunk on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 10:06:19 AM EST

Not that you will, but... (2.00 / 2)

Look up the concept of "the tyranny of the majority."

by Dreorg on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 11:05:26 AM EST

Re: Not that you will, but... (2.00 / 1)

exactly my thought.

by slynch on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 02:04:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

umm (2.00 / 2)

they arent forcing their will on anyone. They arent forcing you to fuck a dude. ur just a bigot and a homophobe which everyone has known for MOMNTHS.

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 11:29:50 AM EST

The decisions lets the people decide! (2.00 / 1)

Yes, by all means, LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE.

Those people who wish to marry someone of the same gender, can now decide to do so in Connecticut. Those people who wish to marry someone of the opposite gender, or who choose not to marry at all, can also carry out their decisions exactly as previously.

This is what the Supreme Court of Connecticut has correctly mandated: that all people in Connecticut can now decide whom they want to marry!

by markjay on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 11:33:56 AM EST

Re: Conn. ruling: when laws have no meaning (2.00 / 2)

You ask: "Do you want to live in a country where 1 vote by an unelected government official can over-ride the will of the people?"

My answer - Sweat v. Painter, and Brown v. Board of Education didn't speak for the will of the people either.

You ask: "If you disagreed with Bush v Gore why not try to be consistent?"

My answer: "Mindless consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Ralph Waldo Emerson.

by bushsucks on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 01:30:44 PM EST

Re: Conn. ruling: when law... (2.00 / 1)

as stated above, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits same-sex marriage, and so, it is YOU who needs to think about the consistency of your views. A state recognizing that the Constitution says nothing about marriage, and so laws prohibiting same-sex marriage are unconstitutional is making the right decision.

Frankly, you don't have a leg to stand on here.

by slynch on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 02:08:25 PM EST

Re: Conn. ruling: when laws have no meaning (2.00 / 1)

Seriously, why don't you write about other stuff. You're a broken record.

by Skaje on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 02:17:59 PM EST

Re (none / 0)

Never stops depressing me that so many people spend so much time and effort trying to prevent others getting the same right to legal recognition of their love that they enjoy.

It doesn't hurt a single heterosexual marriage to allow gays to get married.

Sometimes judges are ahead of their time, this is one of those times.

by liberalj on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 02:47:06 PM EST

Sadly .... (2.00 / 1)

you seem to be hell bent on denying everyone the same basic right.

May the same thing never happen to you, for I am sure you would be the first and loudest of all the screamers.

Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?

by emsprater on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 02:51:29 PM EST

Awwww.... Crazy Craig (none / 0)

No normal person wants 2 "married men living next to them". - yellowdem1129

Hey, at least he's not comparing gay marriage to trans fats again.

And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.

by thatpurplestuff on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 03:11:33 PM EST

I have 2 married men living next to me (none / 0)

one in the house on the left, and one in the house on the right ;) LOL!

by bushsucks on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 04:09:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the judges are just enforcing the constitution (none / 0)

nothing too bad. The reason courts exist is so that the tyranny of the majority doesn't try to twist the real law. The same majority had slavery exist for too long

by Lakrosse on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 04:04:04 PM EST

slavery was in the constitution (none / 0)

it was wrong, of course. But judges couldn't just decide that slavery wasn't in the constitution.

The constitution needed to be changed.

Otherwise words have no meaning.

by yellowdem1129 on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 06:07:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: slavery was in the constitution (none / 0)

You've completely missed the point of the argument, which I've come to expect of you. The original poster was arguing that the judges WERE in fact enforcing the constitution, not changing it. Also, whether judges enforce the constitution or not has no bearing on whether or not words have meaning.

by Cincinnatus on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 06:43:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: slavery was in the constitution (none / 0)

Try reading Loving v. Virginia. Decided in 1967. It should give you some perspective.

by StrangeAnomaly on Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 11:04:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll state the obvious (none / 0)

This diary is a LOAD OF F%%KING CRAP!

"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08

by feliks on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 04:20:57 PM EST

check out Dan Savage this week (none / 0)

he has a special offer for all donors to No on 8 (defeat the marriage ban in CA) campaign.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis cuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum= 103&topic_id=392524&mesg_id=3925 24

by chiefscribe on Sat Oct 11, 2008 at 07:03:49 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.