TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 106
   
Posts: 1660/3340
EXP: 12489467
For next: 182517
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 20 hours
|  #21 Posted on 15.3.05 2007.36
Reposted on: 15.3.12 2007.48 | Originally posted by Dahak
Originally posted by TheBucsFan
If the people vote for it even if I hate it then it's just a stupid law
The majority of the country supporting an unconstitutional concept does not change the fact that it is unconsitutional. This judge ruled it unconstitutional. It's called checks and balances.
Since you (sort of) quoted me I will respond. Judges don't really run for election. A judge will retire half way through their term and then another is appointed. So even if it's not an open election which it is half the time the "new" judge is the incumbent.
Now I agree about checks and balances. Above I said that I have no problem with gay marriages. Also the courts are the best way to keep stupid laws in check. However people don't believe in laws made by judges as much as ones passed by voters or by elected officials. You can find a judge to pretty much approve or disapprove of pretty much anything. That is the problem with judges passing laws.
Actually, I trust the courts more than I trust Congress. For one thing, while politics is alive and well in the judicial system, judges for the most part still don't answer to many people. They don't have to weight what decision might get them re-elected, so their motivation isn't what's going to please the most people, it's what they think is right. I have much more respect for judges than I do legislators. | BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 63
Posts: 441/1091
EXP: 2055316
For next: 41847
Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD
Since last post: 2351 days
Last activity: 2079 days
| #22 Posted on 15.3.05 2044.31
Reposted on: 15.3.12 2044.31 | Originally posted by TheBucsFan
Actually, I trust the courts more than I trust Congress. For one thing, while politics is alive and well in the judicial system, judges for the most part still don't answer to many people. They don't have to weight what decision might get them re-elected, so their motivation isn't what's going to please the most people, it's what they think is right. I have much more respect for judges than I do legislators.
So you think that it's better to give more power to a single individual than to a large body? I understand, and agree to an extent, with your view on their accountability, but I don't think that a single individual on the bench being able to dictate public policy is a good thing.
(edited by BigSteve on 15.3.05 2148)
(edited by BigSteve on 15.3.05 2149) | PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 76
Posts: 1478/1528
EXP: 3864465
For next: 141614
Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy
Since last post: 2339 days
Last activity: 2182 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #23 Posted on 16.3.05 0014.45
Reposted on: 16.3.12 0014.46 | Originally posted by TheBucsFan
Actually, I trust the courts more than I trust Congress. For one thing, while politics is alive and well in the judicial system, judges for the most part still don't answer to many people. They don't have to weight what decision might get them re-elected, so their motivation isn't what's going to please the most people, it's what they think is right. I have much more respect for judges than I do legislators.
We don't (I hope) live in a society in which any one man's conscience should weigh too heavily on his fellows, eh?
Edit, because I should elaborate I suppose: I think I know where you are coming from. But I also think the rule of the masses, while messy at times, is one of the best checks or balances there is. Sure, the judge isn't accountable to flavor-of-the-month politics. But concentrated power in the hands of the unaccountable rarely leads to much good. What happens when we get a judge whose consience you like less?
(edited by PalpatineW on 16.3.05 0127) | TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 106
Posts: 1661/3340
EXP: 12489467
For next: 182517
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 20 hours
| #24 Posted on 16.3.05 0048.02
Reposted on: 16.3.12 0050.29 | Originally posted by BigSteve
Originally posted by TheBucsFan
Actually, I trust the courts more than I trust Congress. For one thing, while politics is alive and well in the judicial system, judges for the most part still don't answer to many people. They don't have to weight what decision might get them re-elected, so their motivation isn't what's going to please the most people, it's what they think is right. I have much more respect for judges than I do legislators.
So you think that it's better to give more power to a single individual than to a large body? I understand, and agree to an extent, with your view on their accountability, but I don't think that a single individual on the bench being able to dictate public policy is a good thing.
(edited by BigSteve on 15.3.05 2148)
(edited by BigSteve on 15.3.05 2149)
A judge's power is only to allow or disallow a law someone else has decided to pass. Also, any judge or court other than the Supreme Court has one or several higher courts that can overturn an unjust ruling. And in the Supreme Court, it has changed its mind and reversed many decisions (including, in response to Palpetine, rulings that went with the rule of the masses. Was Plessy vs. Fergusen ["seperate but equal] a good decision because its the one the most people would have agreed with?).
I mean, in theory yes one person can get a lifetime appointment and go on a power trip. But can you guys give me some examples of this happening?
EDIT:
Furthermore, I don't think a law is a measure of the public's pulse. Rather, it is a clarification of what is allowed or not allowed by the Constitution, be it the U.S. one or those of the several states. I don't see any way the U.S. Constitution allows for discrimination between same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages. Because it is not banned, that means it is allowed at the federal level but also leaves to the states the option of banning it.
Now I admit I don't know enough about even my own state's constitution to speak authoritatively, so this is entirely speculation on my part, but I'd guess most state constitutions (with the exception of those that were ammended in November) also don't allow for such discrimination. If the public wants it that bad, then perhaps constitutional ammendments at the state level or one at the national level are in order, but until that happens I say it is in fact unconstitutional. It would disappoint me greatly to see such an ammendment, and I think it would only be a matter of time before it was repealed, but if the public decides that's what it wants than I say that's the only way public opinion dictates laws.
(edited by TheBucsFan on 16.3.05 0546) | Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 122
Posts: 4558/4700
EXP: 20369753
For next: 268319
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 779 days
Last activity: 575 days
| #25 Posted on 16.3.05 0651.15
Reposted on: 16.3.12 0653.00 | Originally posted by TheBucsFan
I mean, in theory yes one person can get a lifetime appointment and go on a power trip. But can you guys give me some examples of this happening?
I can think of Roe v. Wade as a case where judges made shit up out of thin air(and I can recognize this even if I am pro-choice)
| DrDirt
Banger
Level: 94
Posts: 1346/2662
EXP: 8174546
For next: 182142
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 2 days
| #26 Posted on 16.3.05 0734.42
Reposted on: 16.3.12 0737.56 | Originally posted by PalpatineW
font>
We don't (I hope) live in a society in which any one man's conscience should weigh too heavily on his fellows, eh?
Edit, because I should elaborate I suppose: I think I know where you are coming from. But I also think the rule of the masses, while messy at times, is one of the best checks or balances there is. Sure, the judge isn't accountable to flavor-of-the-month politics. But concentrated power in the hands of the unaccountable rarely leads to much good. What happens when we get a judge whose consience you like less?
(edited by PalpatineW on 16.3.05 0127)
Judges may be removed for cause although it is rare. And while we have majority rule, one of the conerstones of our country is that we are committed to safguarding the rights of the majority. Also, for many issues what is the "mass" when the country is so evenly divided.
In an ideal world, elected legislators and judges should act to do what is correct, not what the masses want. Also, everyone's conscience should weigh heavily on their decisions (within the framework of the law). | DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 59
Posts: 743/859
EXP: 1628978
For next: 44160
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 1744 days
Last activity: 611 days
| #27 Posted on 16.3.05 0736.11
Reposted on: 16.3.12 0739.36 | Originally posted by PalpatineW
We don't (I hope) live in a society in which any one man's conscience should weigh too heavily on his fellows, eh?
Edit, because I should elaborate I suppose: I think I know where you are coming from. But I also think the rule of the masses, while messy at times, is one of the best checks or balances there is. Sure, the judge isn't accountable to flavor-of-the-month politics. But concentrated power in the hands of the unaccountable rarely leads to much good. What happens when we get a judge whose consience you like less?
(edited by PalpatineW on 16.3.05 0127)
Since judges are either (a)appointed by representaives of the people who were elected by the people or (b) voted into office by the people, I'm not sure I see how their judicial authority is any more or less concentrated than any of the other government branches.
And while I see Grimis's Roe v. Wade argument, if a ruling serves to guarantee someone protection needed and not currently afforded under the law, how is that not a good thing for society as a whole?
Banning gay marriage won't stop poeple from partnering, just as banning abortion didn't stop them from happening and prohibition didn't stop people from drinking. Study after study (specifically the Twin Studies) show that the prevalence of homsexual behavior among identical twins, franternal tiwn, and siblings is the same as eye color, hair color and any other genetic trait. People tend to want to ignore that (and the incidences in nature that Messenior talked about).
If people could become more comfortable with themselves and stand without judgment of others (One of the FIRST lessons I remember from Sunday School)--these discriminatory actions disguised as faith-based moral beliefs would hopefully disappear. I mean, I can disagree with something/someone and still agree to live and let live. If the faithful can agree that we all will meet our maker, then why not just let him/her sort out the good people/actions from the bad? | Dahak
Frankfurter
Level: 56
Posts: 587/772
EXP: 1366131
For next: 32054
Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.
Since last post: 1535 days
Last activity: 1188 days
| #28 Posted on 16.3.05 0818.59
Reposted on: 16.3.12 0829.01 | DrOp I don't know how your state works with elections of judges but here in Oregon they aren't really elected. They serve 2 or 3 four years terms. Then they retire a year after getting elected. Then another judge is appointed. That new judge is the incumbent so even in the 25% of cases that someone runs against them they have a huge advantage. Also unless a judge does something really stupid who even knows who their judges are?
I think that it is unconstitutional to ban gay marriages. The arguments are weak at best and racist at worst. I think that the judge is doing the right thing. However another judge will find some loophole in his court opinion and things will end up in the exact same place. If this is required to go the judicial route into becoming legal California should quit fucking around and sent it to their supreme court. | Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 122
Posts: 4559/4700
EXP: 20369753
For next: 268319
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 779 days
Last activity: 575 days
| #29 Posted on 16.3.05 0845.09
Reposted on: 16.3.12 0850.35 | | (deleted by CRZ on 16.3.05 0942) | jfkfc
Liverwurst
Level: 67
Posts: 543/1170
EXP: 2577464
For next: 15422
Since: 9.2.02
Since last post: 78 days
Last activity: 2 days
| #30 Posted on 16.3.05 0927.27
Reposted on: 16.3.12 0929.02 | | (deleted by CRZ on 16.3.05 0942) | CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 205
Posts: 5924/15466
EXP: 124799283
For next: 669593
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 22 min.
| #31 Posted on 16.3.05 0942.19
Reposted on: 16.3.12 0943.21 | Originally posted by Grimis
Let's change the debate.
Oops, time to step in! | spf
Scrapple
Level: 130
Posts: 3145/5354
EXP: 25346365
For next: 384281
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 8 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #32 Posted on 16.3.05 0952.58
Reposted on: 16.3.12 0953.05 | Originally posted by Grimis
Originally posted by TheBucsFan
I mean, in theory yes one person can get a lifetime appointment and go on a power trip. But can you guys give me some examples of this happening?
I can think of Roe v. Wade as a case where judges made shit up out of thin air(and I can recognize this even if I am pro-choice)
I would argue that you can go back further if you want to complain about the activist court idea. Though we all celebrate it as a landmark decision, Brown v. Board of Ed. was really the court deciding to legislate integration, regardless of whether the facilities given to each race were truly equal. They made the decision that American society was racist and thus needed integration and put it into place at the most impressionable level, the schools. Also Griswold was another precedent for Roe in the way the Court decided to begin to extract out the idea of reasonable expectation of privacy from the 4th Amendment. I would say Roe follows logically from past Court decisions, but if you want to go back at those decisions, you could have a solid grounding to say the Court was overstepping its bounds (despite my personal agreement with all three cases) | Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 127
Posts: 2603/5074
EXP: 23384899
For next: 341732
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 9 days
Last activity: 3 hours
| #33 Posted on 16.3.05 1627.22
Reposted on: 16.3.12 1629.01 | Originally posted by Dahak
DrOp I don't know how your state works with elections of judges
In MD, we elect* our judges.
*We have to vote for like a max of four on the ballot and usually they're running unopposed, or maybe against one or two other people.
| Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 122
Posts: 4562/4700
EXP: 20369753
For next: 268319
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 779 days
Last activity: 575 days
| #34 Posted on 17.3.05 0802.14
Reposted on: 17.3.12 0803.19 | Originally posted by Zeruel
Originally posted by Dahak
DrOp I don't know how your state works with elections of judges
In MD, we elect* our judges.
*We have to vote for like a max of four on the ballot and usually they're running unopposed, or maybe against one or two other people.
But again that depends on which judges. Only Circuit Court judges can be opposed, though they often aren't. District and Appeals Court judges are voted on an up and down yes or no vote. | | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Pages: Prev 1 2
