Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
I snipped off this portion because I think this is EXACTLY what you and the OP (and others) were trying to address here. I'll get back to the rest later when I have time, but I'll tackle this now.
You, the OP and others are saying, in essence, you understand the legal difference but the law and its process make no difference to popular perception - so the perception should win out over law in a court of law.
With all due respect, that is a ridiculous position.
Are we a nation of laws, of due process and the procedures that safeguard us from abuse? Or are we a nation of blowdried halfwit pundits telling us what to think and emotional knee-jerk responses to catch phrases? That sounds harsh and I know it, but think about what you're saying here and how it applies. Then back off and look at it again from your rational side.
The Courts are our last bastion against exactly the sort of mob rule you are advocating here. They operate, believe it or not, under strict procedural and jurisdictional limitations for a reason. Standing is one of those limitations. You may not agree with their decisions, hell I disagree with them as often as anybody else. But disagreeing with their decisions and denying their right to make them or the very existence of the rules by which they make them are two very, very different things.
When you disagree with what Congress does, why aren't you out railing to the heavens about their illegitimacy to pass law? When you disagree with a decision by the POTUS, why aren't you out crying about his illegitimacy to perform his tasks? (Unless you're a birfer, but that's a different thread. )
The Courts are a mystery to most people. The judges are unelected. They have arcane, highly theoretical and complicated procedures and a maze of rules even a lot of attorneys who don't deal with the Federal system on a regular basis can have trouble with. They work from a base of law, equity, history and precedent so vast and complex it seems sometimes they pull what are actually very sound decisions out of thin air. They apply interpretations from a broad range of mainstream paradigms, and there will always be disagreement over which interpretation should be used. Sometimes they screw the pooch royally. And we're told over and over again to fear them, that they're taking away our rights and destroying our principles rather than performing the task of upholding them as best they can against the galloping herd. I get it.
There's nothing I can say to combat the power of the fear machine, I get that too. Who am I but some ghost in the machine? But I will say this: If you can see the legal point, remember the Courts ONLY deal with law. They do not and cannot care about how you feel or perceive, that is not their job and is not within their power and quite frankly it should never be. They exist solely to address that legal point and resolve controversy in a civilized manner according to their rules and limitations. Period.
I said it on another thread to another poster earlier and I'll say it here, learn to separate out the issues.
Why do you keep insisting I am saying something I am not?
Since you insist on discussing a side issue here, I will defend my interpretation of the fact that the vote was nullified. If I voted for a law that only people with that own land get to vote on property taxes, and that law was then challenged by renters who did not like the fact that they now get no say on school spending, and the courts eventually struck down that law for whatever reason, then the end result is that my vote is nullified. It does not ultimately matter if the court decides the vote was wrong because someone who supported the law committed fraud, thus invalidating the vote itself, or he just decides the law is badly written, and thus unenforceable, it still negates my vote by negating the result of the vote.
Please note that this is not an argument that the judge lacks the power to do this, it just is an argument that this is what he is doing. This is not just a perception, it is a fact, even if it is one that makes no difference to the outcome of the case.
Let us now discuss your contention that the courts are the last resort against mob rule. I am willing to admit that this seems to be taught in many schools today, and that there is even some evidence to support this assertion, but that does not make it true.
The truth is that courts have no power to enforce their rulings, and are thus not a defense against anything. If Eisenhower had not ordered out the National Guard to enforce the desegregation ruling in Alabama the schools there might still be segregated.
Courts have even been used to facilitate mob rule, like they did in the Jim Crow era. How does this make them our last line of defense?
This is not about fear, this is about the rule of law. The power of the government comes from the people, it is not imposed on them. I do not understand why this is so hard to grasp, but it is ultimately why I refuse to accept the label of liberal as it is defined today. Everyone has the right, and the ability, to make their own decisions. Liberals toady believe that the government should make decisions for the people, and that most people are not capable of understanding the esoteric rationale behind those decisions.
If the court truly acted the way you are trying to claim it did in this particular instance I would have absolutely no problem with it, but that is not what happened. Judge Walker essentially ruled that over half of the people in California were completely irrational when they voted for Proposition 8. This decision was not based on the rule of law, or anything resembling logic. It was based solely on the perception of the judge that there is no rational basis for this law.
In other words, even though I fully support SSM, this decision offends me because it allows the perceptions of one person to outweigh the decisions of everyone who voted. Even though I think that the people who argue against SSM are wrong, I do recognize that they have some valid points about the way liberal polices have negatively impacted marriage over the years. The idea that the only reason anyone has to oppose SSM is because they are prejudiced against homosexuals is so ridiculous that it shows an inherent bigotry against religious beliefs.
If you want to argue that the courts are mostly fair I will not argue, but do not try to tell me they are our last defense against mob rule, because they are not even a defense against the mob. They often support the mob, and are supporting the fear mongering you claim to oppose with this decision.