Comments on: When Courts Overturn “The Will Of The People”

By: nameless cynic

nameless cynic — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 13:02:40 +0000

Yeah, it’s true. I cut-and-pasted that. I googled (I think it was) “california fair housing act” and that was the most succinct description I found. What? I’m supposed to reinvent the wheel every time?

Curse you, Dave in Northridge! Can’t you let me bask in my stolen glory for five minutes?

By: Lymis

Lymis — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:37:01 +0000

“Recent polls seems to suggest that the will of the people, at least in Cal., has changed somewhat since the vote on Prop 8.”

That doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is the will of the RIGHT people. The others don’t count.

I mean, come on, the other people are the ones who think gay people should have legal rights. You’re going to trust people like that to have legal power?

By: John Doucette

John Doucette — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:30:05 +0000

Recent polls seems to suggest that the will of the people, at least in Cal., has changed somewhat since the vote on Prop 8.
In part, I think, because people realized that the big money from outside Cal. paid for a bunch of lies and distortions on the issue. People were hoodwinked into voting for what the Catholic and Morman churches wanted. It is only the judges’ job to try and correct things like this.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 02:16:08 +0000

Very nice article, should give the pro-overturning side a little extra ammo.

By: Dave in Northridge

Dave in Northridge — Sat, 07 Aug 2010 00:00:48 +0000

Here’s the link, only it’s not from the Blade, it’s from Patt Morrison at the Los Angeles Times, whose column (this is the last paragraph) the Blade commentator pasted from: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2010/08/proposition-8-judge-walker-and-our-short-memories.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OpinionLa+%28L.A.+Times+-+Opinion+Blog%29

Discrimination is discrimination, and I think even this Supreme Court can understand that. By the way, the decision on Reitman v Mulkey, the case described above, was 5-4.

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 20:55:28 +0000

@TampaZeke “If judges and the courts aren’t supposed to interpret law and determine the constitutionality of laws then what exactly is their purpose?”

I can only guess that conservatives think the only purpose is to protect the majority from the minority. They can do that by sending the minority members to jail or by issuing massive fines and damages to people who intrude on the privilege of the majority.

Sadly, as a business student, I’ve met a number of these people.

Oh, and also to strike down RomneyCare–I mean ObamaCare. Because that’s a bad law they don’t like.

By: gayatheist

gayatheist — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:28:56 +0000

It seems a vast number of Americans don’t realize that one of the main roles of the Judicial branch of the Government is to protect the various minorties from the majority – it’s one of the primary FUNCTIONS of the Judiciary branch, so to call the exercizing of that Constitutional power “activist” is simply ignorant.

By: TampaZeke

TampaZeke — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:12:18 +0000

If judges and the courts aren’t supposed to interpret law and determine the constitutionality of laws then what exactly is their purpose?

By: Mark F.

Mark F. — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 18:49:29 +0000

Well, it’s stupid to say the courts can’t overturn the will of the people, but one can disagree with their decisions. Not all law is good law.

By: jOHN

jOHN — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 18:05:02 +0000

Makes it different… it is still discriminatory…