Originally posted by Liberator
All of you, 38 states already have laws that prohibit same-sex marriage, Activist Judges, who legislate from the bench, would still force those states to recognize a SS Marriage from the other 12 states.
No. Completely wrong. The Massachusettes Supreme Court did not rule that Alabama's law prohibiting gay marriage or California's law prohibiting gay marriage was contrary to the Massachusettes state constitution. The Massachusettes Supreme Court
only ruled that the
Massachusettes state ban on gay marriage is uncinstitutional
according to Massachusettes' state constitution. The question of whether a state ban on gay marriage would violate equal protection is a
federal question, not a state one. Therefore, that question would go only to the US Supreme Court, not any state court.
And judging by how the US Supreme Court ruled against the Texas state ban on sodomy (the US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, if you don't remember), chances are, if this gay marriage ban amendment doesn't pass (very likely), the US Supreme Court could very well rule that a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
Or are you going to tell me that Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter and Justice O'Connor, all appointed by Republican presidents are activist judges as well?
Originally posted by Liberator
Another example of Activist Judges is the Roe V. Wade decision that is used hammer the Pro-Abortion agenda of the radical far-left. It's not an actual law, it's a judicial decision on one case from the 1970s. It's treated as a law though, and unscrupulous individuals use that misconception to murder hundreds of thousands of babies every year.
Pure baloney. Any 1st year law student would shake his head at this. Law professors hearing you say this in their class would laugh in your face and suggest you find another line of work besides becoming a lawyer. Lawyers hearing you say this in the courtroom would immediately have your legal license taken away because of incompetence.
The US Supreme Court is designed to look at laws and see if they comport with the US Constitution or not. If they do, they are judged constitutional and remain as good law. If not, they are nullified. Roe v. Wade dealt with a Texas ban on abortion. The US Supreme Court looked at this law and said that the ban on abortion was unconstitutional and nullified it. The precedent from this case clearly states that any law banning abortion before viability is not compatible with the Constitution. Therefore, it is a matter of constitutional law that a ban on abortion is incompatible with a woman's right to privacy.
Defining the law is NOT just a matter of passing them in the legislature. Courts are asked every moment of every day to interpret
what the law means. That's what they're
designed to do. Cases in the court define the law just as much as legislatures do. Legislatures write the words of the laws, but it's courts who decide what they
mean. Our system has been like that for more than 200 years.
Find out how the law works before you go off on a rant about "murder."
Originally posted by Liberator
There is a small, very vocal minority who are using the general apathy of the American people to steal their country from them. That's what this is really about, the very future of America herself.
Yeah, that minority is called the Republican right-wing, who are so desperate to force every other American to their views.
You're complaining about people getting their rights taken
away and yet you're ranting about
nullifing a woman's right to choose an abortion without being hassled by the state? You're moaning about people getting their rights taken
away and yet you're ranting about not granting gays the same right to get married as straight couples?
If you can't see how utterly contradictory your arguments are, I pity you. Or at least, I would if I weren't laughing so hard.
