|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Sept 13, 2010 22:41:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 13, 2010 23:34:43 GMT -5
Barstow is one of yahoo's worst (in my opinion).
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Sept 14, 2010 0:05:21 GMT -5
Yes, let's take all minorities out of positions of power so they can't rule in favour of their own selfish interests.
|
|
|
Post by booley on Sept 14, 2010 0:12:19 GMT -5
Yes, let's take all minorities out of positions of power so they can't rule in favour of their own selfish interests. But then shouldn't we also take out majorities too so they don't rule in favor of their group? What if the judge had been a straight man who ruled in favor of prop 8? Would this cartoonist still have a problem?
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Sept 14, 2010 0:17:25 GMT -5
Yes, let's take all minorities out of positions of power so they can't rule in favour of their own selfish interests. But then shouldn't we also take out majorities too so they don't rule in favor of their group? What if the judge had been a straight man who ruled in favor of prop 8? Would this cartoonist still have a problem? I think this cartoonist would have to bother thinking things through for more than eight-tenths of a second for him to not have a problem. But that's hard work.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 14, 2010 1:49:49 GMT -5
If it had been a straight judge who ruled against Prop 8, they STILL would have called him gay.
If he had ruled for Prop 8, they would have called him an upstanding, moral man.
If he had ruled for Prop 8 and they knew he was gay, they'd probably say that all gays are backstabbing traitors, which is all the more reason we shouldn't let them marry.
|
|
|
Post by shadoom on Sept 14, 2010 2:04:32 GMT -5
Isn't America (and by extension California) supposed to be a democracy? If the majority votes to outlaw gay marriage then, in line with democratic principles, it should be outlawed. There clearly is a problem when an unelected judge overrules the will of the people in a country that claims to be democratic.
Not that I'm defending Prop 8. The way I see it is that you can have minority rights or democracy, but a system that tries to have both is ultimately unsustainable.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 14, 2010 2:14:24 GMT -5
I know less than nothing about Proposition 8, but a quick Wiki search tells me that it was an attempt to circumvent the ruling of the California Supreme Court.
Courts exist for the precise purpose of saying whether or not laws are justified.
The judge likely realized this & kindly told the majority to go fuck themselves, as the law was already very clear on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by arrowdeath on Sept 14, 2010 2:32:19 GMT -5
Isn't America (and by extension California) supposed to be a democracy? If the majority votes to outlaw gay marriage then, in line with democratic principles, it should be outlawed. There clearly is a problem when an unelected judge overrules the will of the people in a country that claims to be democratic. Not that I'm defending Prop 8. The way I see it is that you can have minority rights or democracy, but a system that tries to have both is ultimately unsustainable. The phrase is majority rules, minority rights. The majority cannot make decisions that take away the rights of the minority. That is a cornerstone of democracy, and is also what differentiates it from mob rule. The power of the courts is a safeguard to this extent, to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. In that respect this guy was totally doing his job.
|
|
|
Post by shadoom on Sept 14, 2010 2:54:00 GMT -5
Isn't America (and by extension California) supposed to be a democracy? If the majority votes to outlaw gay marriage then, in line with democratic principles, it should be outlawed. There clearly is a problem when an unelected judge overrules the will of the people in a country that claims to be democratic. Not that I'm defending Prop 8. The way I see it is that you can have minority rights or democracy, but a system that tries to have both is ultimately unsustainable. The phrase is majority rules, minority rights. The majority cannot make decisions that take away the rights of the minority. That is a cornerstone of democracy, and is also what differentiates it from mob rule. The power of the courts is a safeguard to this extent, to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority. In that respect this guy was totally doing his job. No, it is not a cornerstone of democracy. Switzerland recently voted to outlaw Islamic minarets, and for many years the US oppressed blacks with apparent popular support, in both cases the countries were still considered democracies. The only cornerstone of democracy is that sovereignty and power flow from the people, the electorate, and whatever they want it is the duty of the democratic state to provide.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 14, 2010 2:58:34 GMT -5
Isn't America (and by extension California) supposed to be a democracy? If the majority votes to outlaw gay marriage then, in line with democratic principles, it should be outlawed. There clearly is a problem when an unelected judge overrules the will of the people in a country that claims to be democratic. Not that I'm defending Prop 8. The way I see it is that you can have minority rights or democracy, but a system that tries to have both is ultimately unsustainable. We're a constitutional democracy, not a pure democracy. There are some things that we simply can't vote for. That's the entire point of the Bill of Rights. And when you consider it's been like this for over 200 years, I'd say that it's far from unsustainable.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 14, 2010 3:18:21 GMT -5
Slaves were considered property, people are minorities. The Bill of Rights does not apply to property. However, we couldn't just vote slavery back in, because the judicial branch decided that slavery was unacceptable, & executive branch enforced it.
The States didn't get to keep up Jim Crow laws, the branches of government did what they were supposed to do, & whether or not the majority was okay with that didn't matter.
Also, how publicly acceptable it was depended on where in the United States you were.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 14, 2010 4:18:59 GMT -5
The fact that Prop 8 passed at all is a failure of the system, it means it's not working as intended.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Sept 14, 2010 4:56:43 GMT -5
We're a constitutional democracy, not a pure democracy. There are some things that we simply can't vote for. That's the entire point of the Bill of Rights. And when you consider it's been like this for over 200 years, I'd say that it's far from unsustainable. And just to be a dick, we're actually a constitutional democratic republic. So let's say the entire population of one massive state decided some people shouldn't have rights across the country, they can't do squat, between the house and the senate the rest of the country has ample oppertunity to tell them to stuff themselves, if it passes that shot, it has to get past the president who is typically elected by a majority of citizens across the nation, and then has to pass any challenges off it's consitutionality posed in the courts or it can still be struck down. Well, that last bit also applies at the local level. Illegal laws are possible, and present a huge pain in the ass for the courts, so they typically toss them out. Say I wanted to ban mullets, beer and NASCAR as they're detrimental to the family unit(Won't someone think of the children?), since I'm saying it and I'm a major leader in my community it gets passed. Or I'm a senator, I put it on the floor, it gets passed, and Obama in a fit of amusement passes it just to flip off the republicans. Now, when the MBNU(Mullets beer and NASCAR Union) sues over the ban, claiming it does nothing but discriminate to achieve no real goal. Well, I would then have to prove that what I'm doing has a quantifiable effect on society, otherwise the "You're full of shit" clause of the constitution applies. If there is no verifable effect of what I have done, and no reason to have done it in the first place other than to discriminate against a particuclar group of people, then there is absolutely no reason for that law to exist, and it is in fact illegal. Even if there is proof, odds are fairly good that it'll still be illegal, but since when have any of the assholes who do this bothered with proof?
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 14, 2010 7:25:16 GMT -5
Isn't America (and by extension California) supposed to be a democracy? If the majority votes to outlaw gay marriage then, in line with democratic principles, it should be outlawed. There clearly is a problem when an unelected judge overrules the will of the people in a country that claims to be democratic. Not that I'm defending Prop 8. The way I see it is that you can have minority rights or democracy, but a system that tries to have both is ultimately unsustainable. LOL. Wait, you were serious. Let me laugh even harder. The reason our humble little Constitutional Democratic Republic can function is because rights of individual are protected. It is not always done perfectly but it is always necessary. Do not think of it as "minority rights". It is the right of the individual, one of which is to gather in groups. Yes, let's take all minorities out of positions of power so they can't rule in favour of their own selfish interests. Not to defend the cartoon's point, or prop 8, but aren't judges supposed to recuse themselves when a potential conflict of interest comes before them in an attempt to ensure impartiality? Admittedly, defining a conflict of interest in this case could become difficult, but it does create the appearance that perhaps the judge's mind was made up before the trial even started.
|
|