Just Stunning

I'm going to have to fisk this bit, because it's perfect...

Big Dog said...
You are assuming I said things that I did not. I do not think mob rule is right. The majority does rule here otherwise Hillary is the nominee.

Here's what he said in his original post. You tell me if he's insisting that "majority rules" trumps the system of government we have in the United States.

The courts are in place to rule on matters of law. By overturning a law voted on by the people, the court overstepped its bounds and went counter to the people’s will.

You cannot be any more clear.

There is no more clearer way that you can say the courts have no jurisdiction when a law is supported by a majority of citizens. That's it.

The law in CA defined marriage and that definition did not include people of the same sex. Many definitions exclude certain groups. The military does not allow females to be in combat and it excludes gays from openly serving. How is it that has stood up to judicial review if you are correct?

Once again, factual errors abound. There's a very good reason that's not subject to judicial review. It's not a fucking civil law..

Again, it's stunning that you do not understand what a "law" is, what the role of the "courts" is, and the concept of jurisdiction and precedent. They teach this stuff in high school government class.

The military is not governed by the same laws as the rest of us. Are you familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Are you aware of the completely separate distinction of the military? Do you understand that the military laws are not civil laws?

Why would you use an analogy that has nothing to do with US civil law? Is it just that you had no idea that military law is completely different? I'd really like to know.

There are many things that the majority has decided here. Not all of them were good. The courts are designed to look at things and see if they violate the Constitution. Gays were not denied equal protection of the law because they did not meet the definition.

You are arguing against long-standing precedent, as well as the clear language of the Equal Protection clause.

Segregation was struck down by the courts, despite being favored by over whelming majorities in the south. Racial minorities "did not meet the definition" of the laws. Do you even know what Jim Crow laws are?

By your logic, the court had no jurisdiction to strike Jim Crow down, and racial inequities deserved to remain until resolved by a popular vote of the people in those states. That's "mob rule". That's what you advocate.

Laws banning inter-racial marriage were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1968, despite more than 70% of the American public being opposed to it. By your logic, each state should have had it's own vote to allow people of different races to get married. In fact, you would insist that the marriage laws were not subject to judicial review because inter-racial couples "did not meet the definition" of the state marriage laws.

Maybe 10 year olds can petition to be allowed to drive since age is arbitrary and they are not getting equal protection...

They CAN petition to be allowed to drive. Good fucking god.. you simply have no idea how government works.

Good luck to them being successful however, as there is a rational basis to deny 10 year olds a drivers license. However, if the law stated that only persons 18 and older, with blue eyes, can get a license, that's going to be reviewed and over turned.

I guess you gay folks always get in a snit when they think they have been wronged. FWIW my religion only plays a part in what I believe. As for laws banning it, that is one that is clearly defined in the US Constitution so good luck with that one.

And you get in a snit when somebody says your religious viewpoint on that issue is silly. Imagine if you couldn't get married, and see what kind of "snit" you would have.

I'm curious.. what "law clearly banning it" are you talking about? For fucks sake man.. laws are not even defined in the Constitution. You really have no idea what the Constitution is, do you?

Ultimately, these religious lunatics keep thinking the courts are over stepping their bounds, despite the fact that it is the courts responsibility to hear and rule on these cases. Who are the ones totally ignorant about the law.. the religious freaks all bent about the homos.. or the legal scholars, entrusted to enforce the Constitution?

Time and again, you're just wrong on the basic facts....

Finally, he said this bit on his blog, once again displaying a stunning ignorance on how the law actually works.

The court made a law that did not exist.

No, the court eliminted a law that violated the state Constitution - and what the people of the state think of that is irrelevant.

/update

Forgot to include this bit;

I am no lawyer but I can recognize when a law is made. If the 4 million people were wrong in the view of the court they should have struck down the definition of marriage and sent it back to the state. This would have put them where they were before.

As it is now, a law exists that did not before.

You know, that's exactly what the court did. That how the process works. The court invalidated (essentially erased it from the books) the law and if the state wants a marriage law, they write one.. and they are more than welcome to call it a "civil union" if they want. It just has to comply with the California Constitution.

It's difficult to argue with somebody who is consistently wrong about the basics of the process.