|
Post by Shane for Wax on Sept 14, 2010 8:38:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Sept 14, 2010 12:38:47 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. Not entirely correct. We could vote on gay marriage, but it'd have to be as a constitutional amendment requiring the ratification of 3/4 of the states. Shadoom: We have several layers of law in the U.S. When a lower layer of law (say, an amendment to a state constitution stating that marriages between same-sex couples aren't recognized) contradicts a higher layer (the 14th amendment to the federal constitution), the lower layer is invalidated. This is the entire purpose of judicial review. You can disagree with the ruling on legal grounds (e.g. if you have a different interpretation of the 14th amendment), but the fact that a majority of people voted for something does not make it constitutional. Unless, as pointed out above, said majority was ratifying a constitutional amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 14, 2010 14:39:51 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? Didn't that same judge also work under the Bush administration?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 14, 2010 14:54:22 GMT -5
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? Didn't that same judge also work under the Bush administration? Walker was too conservative for Pelosi when Reagan tried to appoint him. He was appointed by the first Bush. Also, Walker was originally nominated to the bench by Ronald Reagan in 1987. However, this nomination stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee because of controversy over his representation of the United States Olympic Committee in a lawsuit that prohibited the use of the title "Gay Olympics".[2] Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his perceived "insensitivity" to gays and the poor.[3] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaughn_R._Walker
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 14, 2010 17:19:22 GMT -5
The idea that gays cannot rule on gay issues is stupid. It perpetuates the idea that straight people are inherently unbiased whereas gays are inherently biased.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 14, 2010 17:25:53 GMT -5
The idea that gays cannot rule on gay issues is stupid. It perpetuates the idea that straight people are inherently unbiased whereas gays are inherently biased. It tries to push the idea that heterosexual, protestant, white men are unbiased (and normal), and everybody else is a deviant and can't be trusted. Besides, everybody is biased, that's what education is for, especially for judges, to learn how to recognize your own bias and set it aside.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 14, 2010 17:48:10 GMT -5
Considering that Judge Walker has, in the past, ruled AGAINST gay groups. Such as the group that wanted to use the term "Gay Olympics", which he wouldn't let them do.
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Sept 14, 2010 21:28:23 GMT -5
The idea that gays cannot rule on gay issues is stupid. It perpetuates the idea that straight people are inherently unbiased whereas gays are inherently biased. Well I would argue that it is entirely possible that, on an issue that impacts all gays within a certain jurisdiction, a gay judge might be biased because they are directly impacted by their own ruling (possibly in a very immediate and personal way). These are kind of uncharted waters here, seeing as there haven't really been (to my knowledge) minorities in a position to rule on their own constitutional equality issues before (IE, no black judges in a position to hear Brown V. Board, et al).
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 14, 2010 23:24:51 GMT -5
Not a cartoon, but I need to post it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Sept 15, 2010 11:19:01 GMT -5
Not a cartoon, but I need to post it anyway. The horrible results of class warfare! The top 5% get .5% less of an increase than the lowest 20%. The horror! Oh cool, these little republivision glasses do work.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Sept 15, 2010 13:30:44 GMT -5
Not a cartoon, but I need to post it anyway. The horrible results of class warfare! The top 5% get .5% less of an increase than the lowest 20%. The horror! Oh cool, these little republivision glasses do work. Yeah, I thought they were neat when I found mine in that box of cracker jacks too.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Sept 16, 2010 9:37:59 GMT -5
Never mind the fact that the 95th percentile still does better under democrats, we can't let (ugh) poor people make any gains.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 16, 2010 13:00:01 GMT -5
Never mind the fact that the 95th percentile still does better under democrats, we can't let (ugh) poor people make any gains. The difference there is under the margin of error, and even if it wasn't, money is about comparative wealth, so they actually do better under Republicans since they grow so much faster.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Sept 16, 2010 13:14:44 GMT -5
Never mind the fact that the 95th percentile still does better under democrats, we can't let (ugh) poor people make any gains. The difference there is under the margin of error, and even if it wasn't, money is about comparative wealth, so they actually do better under Republicans since they grow so much faster. It hardly need be said, however, that a prosperous middle class and lower class is of great benefit of the upper class, even if it means that their comparative financial power is somewhat reduced.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 16, 2010 15:01:18 GMT -5
|
|