Liberal FASCISM in California

[Shogun]

An unexpected moment of clarity, to say the least.

Judicial nullification, as you put it, is the means of preventing the tyranny of the majority. How would you protect fundamental liberty if courts could not overturn laws?

Any democratic result can be construed as a tyranny of the majority. Don't liek the result? Tyranny. Can't stomach losing the popular vote? Tyranny. Any given majority scotus or lower court ruling? Tyranny. This is why this exact issue became such a clarion call in 04 for those who galvanize to support bush. Quite honestly, and im not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories, it wouldnt shock me to find out that this sliver of a marriage window (and that really is all it amounts to) was meant to cause the same uprising of christians as we saw in 04. How many states passed legislation after Mass did this exact same shit then? How many have not overturned their post-04 legislation? You may find that California has allowed dems to be played like skin flute at a pride day parade if the size of wave coming is what I think might be on the way.



ps, the Civil Rights Act of 64 was legislation. The Nineteenth amendment was LEGISLATION. These are stark differences than what you insist should be the prerogative of the judicial branch. California didn't so much interpret LEGISLATION as it nullified the will of the people, both state houses AND the governor of that state. That's not a balance; thats usurped juducial authority.

 

[Larkinn]

The California Constitution is also legislation. You think it shouldn't be enforced?

 

[Dogger]

avoid, avoid, avoid, avoid, deflect, deflect, deflect, deflect, . . .

You failed to answer the question. Segregation was the will of the people in 1954. Interracial marriage bans were the will of the people until 1967. Scalia wants states to have the right to jail you for masturbating.

Courts have stood as a barrier to executive authoritarianism and a protector of fundamental liberty. Why are you so insanely driven to restrict the rights of other people that you will surrender any ability to protect your own? How does gay marriage hurt you?

 

[AllieBaba]

Quite honestly, and im not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories, it wouldnt shock me to find out that this sliver of a marriage window (and that really is all it amounts to) was meant to cause the same uprising of christians as we saw in 04.

"Uprising of Christians".
Nice.

 

[Shogun]

I'll give you an answer beyond your goofy little "lame, lame, lame, lame" retorts. Gay Marriage doesn't hurt me; but pissing on the constitution for the sake of your pet issue does. Again, Womens Suffrage and Civil Rights were LEGISLATED. Neither were ever forced at people by the will of any court. Why don't you address that instead of, as you put it, "deflect, deflect, yadda yadda"?


I don't care what Scalia wants as long as I live in a state that deoesn't agree with Scalia. There are still blue laws and dry counties. WHY? Because that's the will of the people who live there. Or, as you might say, a Tyranny of the Teetolers. do alcoholics have a RIGHT to overturn the majority will of the people living in a dry county?


Im betting jacks, joes and dominoes that you ALSO think that Smokers in California living under draconian legislation should DEAL with it and would not qualify for judicial usurping of legislation too, eh? Funny


Oh, and you can save your typical "he must hate gays" routine for someone else. Or, should I remind you how godawfully pathetic it is to see a supposed lawyer lunge for a logical fallacy?


Yes, segregation was the will of the people at one time while it was LEGISLATED out later. So too, was womens suffrage. Do you not comprehend the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE"? What the hell is the point of democracy if 7 or 9 peple get to invalidate it according to popular whim?

 

[Larkinn]

I'll give you an answer beyond your goofy little "lame, lame, lame, lame" retorts. Gay Marriage doesn't hurt me; but pissing on the constitution for the sake of your pet issue does. Again, Womens Suffrage and Civil Rights were LEGISLATED. Neither were ever forced at people by the will of any court. Why don't you address that instead of, as you put it, "deflect, deflect, yadda yadda"?


I don't care what Scalia wants as long as I live in a state that deoesn't agree with Scalia. There are still blue laws and dry counties. WHY? Because that's the will of the people who live there. Or, as you might say, a Tyranny of the Teetolers. do alcoholics have a RIGHT to overturn the majority will of the people living in a dry county?


Im betting jacks, joes and dominoes that you ALSO think that Smokers in California living under draconian legislation should DEAL with it and would not qualify for judicial usurping of legislation too, eh? Funny


Oh, and you can save your typical "he must hate gays" routine for someone else. Or, should I remind you how godawfully pathetic it is to see a supposed lawyer lunge for a logical fallacy?


Yes, segregation was the will of the people at one time while it was LEGISLATED out later. So too, was womens suffrage. Do you not comprehend the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE"? What the hell is the point of democracy if 7 or 9 peple get to invalidate it according to popular whim?

No, actually segregation wasn't legislated out, it was judicially declared unconstitutional. A little case known as Brown v. Board of Ed. Perhaps you've heard of it?

 

[Shogun]

No, actually segregation wasn't legislated out, it was judicially declared unconstitutional. A little case known as Brown v. Board of Ed. Perhaps you've heard of it?

uh, Brown v the board of education overturned a prior court decision dealing with PUBLIC EDUCATION and the 14 amendment.


praytell, which amendment do you think guarantees equal access to a marriage license?



DOH! three steps ahead of you, mensa boy.

 

[Larkinn]

uh, Brown v the board of education overturned a prior court decision dealing with PUBLIC EDUCATION and the 14 amendment.

And segregation, and its legality. Which was court determined, not amendment determined. Where in the 14th amendment does it say that segregation is illegal? Good luck finding it.

praytell, which amendment do you think guarantees equal access to a marriage license?

Which amendment? You do know that the CALIFORNIA Constitution is at issue here, yes?

DOH! three steps ahead of you, mensa boy.

Haha, with your vast knowledge of the law Shogun?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

How does creating stable personal relationships adversely affect you or society? What is the benefit of forcing people who are different to choose between public scorn and loneliness? If you can't articulate an answer to these questions, why should you be able to inflict your moral choice on a minority?

What other than fascist tendencies drives you to care?

And you think we should also encourage "stable" plural marriages?
And "stable" incestuous" marriages too?
How about "stable" marriages in the stable? (pun intended)

But I feel your pain....you are a bleeding heart liberal who has so much compassion for those who only want to have that special piece of paper that will magically cement two loving people together for the rest of their unnatural lives.

However, I don't buy it. When liberals start promoting HETerosexual marriage (instead of doing everything in their power to tear it apart), then I might believe this heartstring approach of yours. However liberalism does NOT support the family.....when you learn this you will have a much better idea of why liberalism is supporting gay marriage.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

LMAO...so basically your defintion of natural is "what SE things life should be like"?

Sorry, but nobody gives a shit about what you like, and nobody is going to run their life based on your opinions.

Glad to see you beginning to learn (despite the kicking & screaming) what Law is all about.

Except that it won't happen. Check out polls of Californians who agree/disagree with the decision.

True, time is eroding support....but not all polls tell the truth either.

 

[Shogun]

And segregation, and its legality. Which was court determined, not amendment determined. Where in the 14th amendment does it say that segregation is illegal? Good luck finding it.

Which amendment? You do know that the CALIFORNIA Constitution is at issue here, yes?

Haha, with your vast knowledge of the law Shogun?

Some aspects of the Brown decision are still debated. Notably, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, himself an African American, wrote in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) that at the very least, Brown I has been misunderstood by the courts.

Brown I did not say that "racially isolated" schools were inherently inferior; the harm that it identified was tied purely to de jure segregation, not de facto segregation. Indeed, Brown I itself did not need to rely upon any psychological or social-science research in order to announce the simple, yet fundamental truth that the Government cannot discriminate among its citizens on the basis of race. . . .

Segregation was not unconstitutional because it might have caused psychological feelings of inferiority. Public school systems that separated blacks and provided them with superior educational resources making blacks "feel" superior to whites sent to lesser schools — would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized, just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are reversed. Psychological injury or benefit is irrelevant. . . .

Given that desegregation has not produced the predicted leaps forward in black educational achievement, there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment. (. . .) Because of their "distinctive histories and traditions," black schools can function as the center and symbol of black communities, and provide examples of independent black leadership, success, and achievement.[30]

Some aspects of the Brown decision are still debated. Notably, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, himself an African American, wrote in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) that at the very least, Brown I has been misunderstood by the courts.

Brown I did not say that "racially isolated" schools were inherently inferior; the harm that it identified was tied purely to de jure segregation, not de facto segregation. Indeed, Brown I itself did not need to rely upon any psychological or social-science research in order to announce the simple, yet fundamental truth that the Government cannot discriminate among its citizens on the basis of race. . . .

Segregation was not unconstitutional because it might have caused psychological feelings of inferiority. Public school systems that separated blacks and provided them with superior educational resources making blacks "feel" superior to whites sent to lesser schools — would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized, just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are reversed. Psychological injury or benefit is irrelevant. . . .

Given that desegregation has not produced the predicted leaps forward in black educational achievement, there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment. (. . .) Because of their "distinctive histories and traditions," black schools can function as the center and symbol of black communities, and provide examples of independent black leadership, success, and achievement.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education


Feel free to post where, EXACTLY, the STATE constitution says that you have a right to be married at all.




oh shit, you are too easy.


Indeed, email your predictable cookie cutter response to Clarence Thomas, lil guy. You are probably better equipped to comment than he is.

 

[Larkinn]

Some aspects of the Brown decision are still debated. Notably, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, himself an African American, wrote in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) that at the very least, Brown I has been misunderstood by the courts.

Brown I did not say that "racially isolated" schools were inherently inferior; the harm that it identified was tied purely to de jure segregation, not de facto segregation. Indeed, Brown I itself did not need to rely upon any psychological or social-science research in order to announce the simple, yet fundamental truth that the Government cannot discriminate among its citizens on the basis of race. . . .

Segregation was not unconstitutional because it might have caused psychological feelings of inferiority. Public school systems that separated blacks and provided them with superior educational resources making blacks "feel" superior to whites sent to lesser schools — would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized, just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are reversed. Psychological injury or benefit is irrelevant. . . .

Given that desegregation has not produced the predicted leaps forward in black educational achievement, there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment. (. . .) Because of their "distinctive histories and traditions," black schools can function as the center and symbol of black communities, and provide examples of independent black leadership, success, and achievement.[30]

Some aspects of the Brown decision are still debated. Notably, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, himself an African American, wrote in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995) that at the very least, Brown I has been misunderstood by the courts.

Brown I did not say that "racially isolated" schools were inherently inferior; the harm that it identified was tied purely to de jure segregation, not de facto segregation. Indeed, Brown I itself did not need to rely upon any psychological or social-science research in order to announce the simple, yet fundamental truth that the Government cannot discriminate among its citizens on the basis of race. . . .

Segregation was not unconstitutional because it might have caused psychological feelings of inferiority. Public school systems that separated blacks and provided them with superior educational resources making blacks "feel" superior to whites sent to lesser schools — would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized, just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are reversed. Psychological injury or benefit is irrelevant. . . .

Given that desegregation has not produced the predicted leaps forward in black educational achievement, there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment. (. . .) Because of their "distinctive histories and traditions," black schools can function as the center and symbol of black communities, and provide examples of independent black leadership, success, and achievement.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

So where in the 14th does it say they can't segregate students again? Congrats on dodging the question.

Feel free to post where, EXACTLY, the STATE constitution says that you have a right to be married at all.

It doesn't. Thats not what the ruling was predicated on.

Indeed, email your predictable cookie cutter response to Clarence Thomas, lil guy. You are probably better equipped to comment than he is.

My response to what? Something that disagrees with nothing I've said?

Again. Where in the 14th does it say schools can't forcibly segregate according to race. I'd like the exact text please.

 

[Shogun]

Baaawwk bawk bawk bawk BeKawwwwk!


it figures your ignore what Ole clarence had to say about Brown v Board.


And, if you wanna run to the safe zone of California's constitution then, again, show me where it says you have a right to be married. Doh! If the State of California doesn't want to acknowledge gay marriage, per legislation, then you have nothing in which to support your lame fucking opinon outside of shit talking (while blaming em for shit talking no less)


but, hey, good news for you, eh dude? Pretty soon you can flaunt your sheep fucking lifestyle and make a population accept your barnyard romance despite any legislation that might indicate the will of the people!

 

[Ravi]

Here's a prime example of you not being a liberal. You don't legislate civil rights. The government's function is to protect rights, not take them away.

 

[Shogun]

Here's a prime example of you not being a liberal. You don't legislate civil rights. The government's function is to protect rights, not take them away.

says who? America has been legislating civil rights longer than it hasn't. Can you show me a source document that suggests that the role of the gov is to protect rights instead of acting as a DEMOCRATIC vehicle?


please, feel free to overwhelm me with evidence, Ravi. Or, at least tell me if Im supposed to be helping you out with the vocabulary.

 

[Larkinn]

Baaawwk bawk bawk bawk BeKawwwwk!

it figures your ignore what Ole clarence had to say about Brown v Board.

What? It has nothing to do with the point at hand. He is differentiating between natural segregation and state sponsored segregation. That is a completely different point than we we are talking about.

And, if you wanna run to the safe zone of California's constitution then, again, show me where it says you have a right to be married. Doh!

It doesn't. I've stated this already. What it DOES do is provide that the state can't discriminate.

If the State of California doesn't want to acknowledge gay marriage, per legislation, then you have nothing in which to support your lame fucking opinon outside of shit talking (while blaming em for shit talking no less)

The Constitution IS legislation.

but, hey, good news for you, eh dude? Pretty soon you can flaunt your sheep fucking lifestyle and make a population accept your barnyard romance despite any legislation that might indicate the will of the people!

Per the usual...as soon as you start getting your ass kicked, turn to insults. What a surprise.

 

[Larkinn]

says who? America has been legislating civil rights longer than it hasn't. Can you show me a source document that suggests that the role of the gov is to protect rights instead of acting as a DEMOCRATIC vehicle?

please, feel free to overwhelm me with evidence, Ravi. Or, at least tell me if Im supposed to be helping you out with the vocabulary.

That would be the Bill of Rights.

Next overwhelmingly simple and easy to understand question, Shogun?

 

[Ravi]

says who? America has been legislating civil rights longer than it hasn't. Can you show me a source document that suggests that the role of the gov is to protect rights instead of acting as a DEMOCRATIC vehicle?


please, feel free to overwhelm me with evidence, Ravi. Or, at least tell me if Im supposed to be helping you out with the vocabulary.

Since you are so fond of wiki I found you an easy to understand link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[Shogun]

ok, now, show me where the bill of rights says you have a right to marriage.


DOH!


again, three steps ahead of you, dude. Trust me, what you think is your right and what the Constitution actually says are worlds apart. But, thanks for falling into that little snare that your silly little predictable ass would react to. I probably didn't lead you to asking me that very question.

 

[Shogun]

Since you are so fond of wiki I found you an easy to understand link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution

oh, hey, thanks for linking strait to article one!


The "Vesting Clause" grants all legislative authority to Congress. Other vesting clauses are found in Articles II and III as well, and differ in respect to the branch of government concerned; Article II's vesting clause vests the President with "the executive power" and Article III's vesting clause vests "the judicial power" in the federal judiciary. The Vesting Clauses thus establish the principle of separation of powers by specifically giving to each branch of the federal government only those powers it can exercise and no others.[1] This means that no branch may exercise powers that properly belong to another (e.g., since the legislative power is vested in Congress, the executive and judiciary may not enact laws).