Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Top NY Court Rules Against Gay Marriage; ...wait, not an activist judge?
Topic Started: Jul 6 2006, 05:45 AM (240 Views)
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/state/ny...y-top-headlines

The main point:

Quote:
 
Judge Robert Smith said New York's marriage law is constitutional and clearly limits marriage to between a man and a woman. Any change in the law should come from the state Legislature, he said.


:clap:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Posted Image
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Well GK, it's usually the other way around. Some advocate of the Gay Agenda(tm) usually posts something about a "victory" when an activist sidesteps the legislation process and hands down a inconsistent ruling. This time the Straight Agenda(tm) gets to post about a *correct* judicial decision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Every state constitution is different. So different decisions in different places could well be consistent.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Only *correct* in your opinion, and nothing more. More than half of today's marriages end in divorce. Why not let gays get in on the misery? Equality, and all....
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
LWpianistin
Jul 6 2006, 09:10 AM
More than half of today's marriages end in divorce.

The other half end in death.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Quirt, correct me if I'm mistaken, but both in Mass. and Cali., both have state law that defines marriage as one man and one woman, correct?

Thus, when a judge rules AGAINST WHAT THE LAW SAYS, it's incorrect. (and inconsistent with state law)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Not if they find that the law is inconsistent with the state's constitution.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
George K
Jul 6 2006, 10:17 AM
LWpianistin
Jul 6 2006, 09:10 AM
More than half of today's marriages end in divorce.

The other half end in death.

I can only hope.

[I know, I'm whistling too close to the graveyard, and I shouldn't do it, as I get superstitious. I'd like mine to end in death about 80 years from now.]
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

JBryan
Jul 6 2006, 10:19 AM
Not if they find that the law is inconsistent with the state's constitution.

That is true, which further leads me to support sending this issue to the states. Although most consitutions are the same "inalienable rights to life, liberty, etc.", they are translated inconsistently compared to other states, which I guess is the inherent beauty of the state system, right?

What is a dilemma to me though is - to what extent does (or should) a judge have power?

For example, through a legislative process - the state has created statutes to define marriage between one man and one woman. This is the same as any other law.

Are judges allowed to come in and declare anything unconstitutional, just because they interpret the constitution differently than another judge?

If it's declared unconstitutional, where does it go then?

Doesn't this nullify the "powers" of a democratic system where people elect representatives to ratify legislation, only to get knocked down by a judge?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt G.
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
These are precisely the reasons for Supreme Courts at the state and federal levels. These courts rule on the constitutionality of legislation, not whether Mr. X libeled Mr. Y. This is effectively a check on the legislative branch, negating its power to pass laws in violation of a constitution. Let's say the City Council of Newark passes an ordinance making it illegal to name one's child 'Vincent'. Even if the ordinance passes unanimously through the council, a judge could rule the ordinance at odds with any number of constitutions or charters, from municipal to Federal, depending on the judge's purview.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

But what then is the check on the judicial powers? Removing judges? Sure, but what about their decisions?

Aren't the very constitutions the judges are basing their decisions on...created by the very legislative body that the judges are limiting?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt G.
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
The legislative branch's check on the judicial, at least at the Federal level, is the confirmation of appointments to the Supreme Court. Individual states have similar, if not entirely analogous, procedures. A legislative body will wish to confirm only those judicial candidates whose idealogies would most closely conform to their own, knowing, through the interview and confirmation processes, the candidates' viewpoints and likely interpretation of constitutional law.

This is all pretty basic civics stuff.

Decisions about the constitutionality of legislation is usually, but not always, final. However, legislatures are free to keep trying with new laws.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
The 89th Key
Jul 6 2006, 09:28 AM
But what then is the check on the judicial powers? Removing judges? Sure, but what about their decisions?

Aren't the very constitutions the judges are basing their decisions on...created by the very legislative body that the judges are limiting?

Actually, I think you've stumbled into the next battleground.

Liberals were much better at conservatives at exploiting the ever-expanding powers of the judiciary in the last century. Conservatives have countered with their own brand of judicial activism in recent years.

The next logical progression in this arms race is to start nuking judges.

Or, at the very least eliminating life tenure for Federal judges.

It's a comin', boys, hang on to your hats...
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Speaking of which...

Georgia's supreme court upheld the ban on gay marriage just now:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/06/D8IMII100.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
The 89th Key
Jul 6 2006, 09:18 AM
Quirt, correct me if I'm mistaken, but both in Mass. and Cali., both have state law that defines marriage as one man and one woman, correct?

Thus, when a judge rules AGAINST WHAT THE LAW SAYS, it's incorrect. (and inconsistent with state law)


JB already corrected you, so I have no need to. :lol:

Quote:
 
But what then is the check on the judicial powers? Removing judges? Sure, but what about their decisions?


In many states judges are elected. Even Supreme Court judges. So there's your check, right there.

And Jolly, whatever you are smoking, it must be the really good stuff, stop bogarting it. A constitutional amendment eliminating life tenure for federal judges? Never happen. Never, ever happen. I'd give you odds and put large dollars on it.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
big al
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
89th, your comments regarding th e state constitutions and the powers of judges caused me to look into the situation, at least as far as my state of residence, Pennsylvania. I found an interesting article (Pennsylvania's Constitutions and the Amendment Process - Where it Began, Where it is Now ) on the subject. I'll quote a couple of passages.

Quote:
 
The Province of Pennsylvania and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have operated under several constitutions for more than 300 years. Black's Law Dictionary describes a constitution as the "fundamental and organic law of a nation or a state." Constitutions are living documents, and as such, change over time.

The processes by which state constitutions are amended vary from state to state. In Pennsylvania the constitutional amendment process occurs in the legislature. The proposed amendments originate in either the state Senate or House of Representatives and must be approved by the majority vote of both houses in two successive sessions.

There is a provision for publication so that the public has an opportunity to learn of the proposed amendment and the position taken on the amendment by candidates for election to the General Assembly. Proposed amendments are submitted to voters for approval or disapproval, not more than once in a five-year period. Once ratified by voters, the proposed amendments become part of the Constitution.


The judges are obligated to weigh acts of the legislature against the "fundamental and organic law" set out in the constitution and if they are at odds, the constitution prevails. The judges are not making law, per se, but rather interpreting the law as established in the constitution (although some argue that they exceed the role of interpreters in some instances). The legislature can propose to change the constitution via the amendment route, but this is normally and a deliberately methodical process. In Pennsylvania, amendments can only start in the legislature. Approval by two succesive sessions of the legislature followed by the favorable vote of the public are required to change the constitution. Other states differ. For example, in states with the initiative and referendum process, amendments may originate with the public via petition and ballot.

Big Al
Location: Western PA

"jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen."
-bachophile
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
QuirtEvans
Jul 6 2006, 12:22 PM
The 89th Key
Jul 6 2006, 09:18 AM
Quirt, correct me if I'm mistaken, but both in Mass. and Cali., both have state law that defines marriage as one man and one woman, correct?

Thus, when a judge rules AGAINST WHAT THE LAW SAYS, it's incorrect. (and inconsistent with state law)


JB already corrected you, so I have no need to. :lol:

Quote:
 
But what then is the check on the judicial powers? Removing judges? Sure, but what about their decisions?


In many states judges are elected. Even Supreme Court judges. So there's your check, right there.

And Jolly, whatever you are smoking, it must be the really good stuff, stop bogarting it. A constitutional amendment eliminating life tenure for federal judges? Never happen. Never, ever happen. I'd give you odds and put large dollars on it.

It may not happen, but I think the attempt will be made.

The reason?

It is the logical conclusion to bench-stacking, and the inevitable swings of the electorate. At one point, it was good enough for the bench if the prospective candidate was known to be well-versed in the law and intelligent.

That is no longer the case.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

QuirtEvans
Jul 6 2006, 02:22 PM
Quote:
 
But what then is the check on the judicial powers? Removing judges? Sure, but what about their decisions?


In many states judges are elected. Even Supreme Court judges. So there's your check, right there.

Electing them is sort of a check, but what about the decisions they make while in office? I believe you can impeach them, correct? At least on some levels. It just seems like a cycle that goes around, but gives a lot of power to the judicial branch.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

big al
Jul 6 2006, 02:25 PM
89th, your comments regarding th e state constitutions and the powers of judges caused me to look into the situation, at least as far as my state of residence, Pennsylvania. I found an interesting article (Pennsylvania's Constitutions and the Amendment Process - Where it Began, Where it is Now ) on the subject. I'll quote a couple of passages.

Quote:
 
The Province of Pennsylvania and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have operated under several constitutions for more than 300 years. Black's Law Dictionary describes a constitution as the "fundamental and organic law of a nation or a state." Constitutions are living documents, and as such, change over time.

The processes by which state constitutions are amended vary from state to state. In Pennsylvania the constitutional amendment process occurs in the legislature. The proposed amendments originate in either the state Senate or House of Representatives and must be approved by the majority vote of both houses in two successive sessions.

There is a provision for publication so that the public has an opportunity to learn of the proposed amendment and the position taken on the amendment by candidates for election to the General Assembly. Proposed amendments are submitted to voters for approval or disapproval, not more than once in a five-year period. Once ratified by voters, the proposed amendments become part of the Constitution.


The judges are obligated to weigh acts of the legislature against the "fundamental and organic law" set out in the constitution and if they are at odds, the constitution prevails. The judges are not making law, per se, but rather interpreting the law as established in the constitution (although some argue that they exceed the role of interpreters in some instances). The legislature can propose to change the constitution via the amendment route, but this is normally and a deliberately methodical process. In Pennsylvania, amendments can only start in the legislature. Approval by two succesive sessions of the legislature followed by the favorable vote of the public are required to change the constitution. Other states differ. For example, in states with the initiative and referendum process, amendments may originate with the public via petition and ballot.

Big Al

Thanks Al, it really is a beautiful system when you think about it.

I guess the bottom line for me at least is that the judicial branch is kept in check by the legislature "ammending" the judge's rule book - that is - the constitution. If an issue is really worth it, it'll make the constitution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LadyElton
Fulla-Carp
The Gay Agenda is just like saying The Nigger Agenda or The Kike Agenda.
Hilary aka LadyElton
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I love you too, Hilary. :hearts:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
LadyElton
Jul 6 2006, 03:44 PM
The Gay Agenda is just like saying The Nigger Agenda or The Kike Agenda.

No, because blacks do not wish to be called "niggers" (although it seems to be a very prevalent form of address between young blacks).

And no, because I've seen no great push from the Jewish community to be referred to as "kikes".

But I have seen a campaign by the homosexual community to rename themselves as "gays".

We're just callin' ya what ya want to be called....
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Agreed.. the 'Flaming Faggot' Agenda or the 'Bull Dyke' Agenda would be the same. Gay is not. You picked the label, not us. Take that away and we are left with either 'homosexual' or an impossibly long behavioral description.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

G.A.Y. = Good As You

Or at least that's how I heard it started...honestly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply