Not a surprise that Judge Lightloafers overturned the will of the people completely

Again, tyranny of the people.

continuing to tote the will of the people as if it's some holy sacrament is outrageously short sighted and myopic

slavery was cool once
removing the jews was totally awesome for most of europe (the real revisionists want to make sure that the French State, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria, etc are not even mentioned in connection with the holocaust; but they're dragging them away too, with gusto)
war in afghanistan was an extremely popular idea once
iraq was popular but controversial
i mean god should i go on? we could go to communist russia, where it wasn't a small cadre that overthrew government it was a popular revolt led by a small cadre. Peace, land, and bread! THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE
will of the people will of the people blah blah blah eventually you have to actually use reason instead of emotion and ignorance

sigh

While that is definitely a good point, there are even more examples of individuals in tyrannical governments gone wild one could cite

Also, we all know if Californians voted for tighter automatic weapons restrictions after some Columbine round 2 and an NRA-member AK-47-owning judge overturned it, the democrats would be using the same argumentation and deification of the People's Will. Both parties just seem to use anything that they can to boost their point anymore, hypocritical, valid, or not :dammit:

This is absolutely untrue.

Most liberals recognize the importance and authority of one of our three branches of government.

Yeah, and so do a lot of republicans. It's not like all republicans are trumpeting the People's Will right now, but some are... and if the situation were flipped, I'd bet cold hard cash some dem would show up on MSNBC doing the reverse.

I don't think you can just say that and have it be true. But even if we accept that it is true, then that just means that there are stupid people on both sides. Which I think can already be accepted as fact. But right now, with the issue at hand, it's imbeciles like nimrod that we're talking about.

Look, I wasn't making that outrageous a statement I don't think. There are people on both sides who will say whatever could possibly support them on the issue at hand, even if they would dismiss that form of argumentation in another context.

Just the other night I saw a dem on MSNBC calling out a republican's suggestion about reforming immigration law so that illegals couldn't just drop a kid here and call it a citizen as "un-Christian". And while you could argue that he was trying to call the GOP hypocritical (which he did not make explicit in any way), you know that there are masses of democrats that would bristle at that kind of overt religiosity in politics. I'm not trying to over-generalize, I'm just saying that that use of silly argumentation occurs no matter what the issue is and which side is arguing for it, it just comes with the territory of current American politics

....and that means it can't be pointed out when it happens?

obviously

how does that refute what i said. those individuals often rode on enormous popular support or latched onto those who did

yes but that didn't actually happen at all so you have done absolutely nothing to support your point

also everyone stop capitalizing the people's will that's an actual russian terrorist cell that assassinated alexander II

Do we live in a republic or a democracy?

Oh, right, whoops.

it is very likely not even the appeals court will hear this case. the defendants in the prop 8 (state of CA) overruling have no interest in reinstating prop 8. schwarzenegger and jerry brown applauded the decision and have no intention of appealing. the prop 8 campaign is on its own and they have to prove injury occurred in order to take it to appeals. of course, this can't be proven. only ideological injury which the appeals courts are reluctant to take up.

i'm pretty sure that by now anyone who makes the 'will of the people' argument is just trolling. internet or real life.

no we fiddled with that to the point where the electoral college is a frustrating monkey wrench between a full on general election and the president.

that goddamn hollyweird liberal

everyone is trolling

The tyranny of the majority.

toqueville said it was the flaw from the fucking start!!! THOSE GODDAMN TERRORIST LOVING FRENCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trolls gonna troll.

Ahnold and co. have no interest in appealing, and the defendant-intervenors probably have no standing to appeal.

IDK what I think about that. On the surface, I like it, and it's sort of funny. On the other hand, if it never gets to the Supreme Court, then equal rights will never apply to all states. On the other hand, I don't know that I yet trust the Supreme Court on this issue.

wut

it's a conservative court. stupidly so.

I think people are getting a bit too excited about this. I won't be surprised if the prop 8 people end up getting to an appeal.

In other words, I think the correct decision would be to uphold Judge Walker's decision, but I'm not sure that the SCOTUS would do that. I think you could put your life savings on the conservative wing not doing the right thing, and the liberal wing siding with equality.

Therefore, it would be very much up to Justice Kennedy, and I'm a little shaky about trusting him to make the right decision. I think he might, but I'm not really sure.

I tend to agree. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the liberal 9th Circuit judges take well into account that ruling that the Prop 8 supporters have no standing to appeal effectively limits the effect of this decision to California only. I'm sure they have their eyes on the big picture just as much as Judge Walker did. They might give the Prop 8 side standing whether they're legally entitled to it or not. It's not like the 9th Circuit doesn't have a reputation for doing whatever the hell they want to, law or Constitution be damned.

That said, it really is shitty that Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown aren't appealing this themselves. Say what you will about the whole idea of "the will of the people," surely it deserves a more zealous defense than it's getting here. If the law is unconstitutional, so be it, but why not exhaust all options on the behalf of the people you were elected to represent and let the appellate judges worry about constitutionality?

Then you elect new people. That's why there are terms and elections and appointees, so laws aren't constantly changing like crazy - a very important part of any law. That is precisely why SC judges sit on there for life, because it slows the change of laws to counteract fickle people. This is extremely basic.

They were elected to their positions, and they now act in those positions. They see no gain in defending it. It's a waste of resources and a waste of time. It's not "really shitty." I just cannot wrap my head around some of the things you say.

What does slowing the rate laws are changed have to do with anything, especially here, where the inaction of elected officials is actually hastening a change in the law?

Just because the people of California can vote in someone who'll actually do their job and defend the laws of the state zealously doesn't make it any less shitty that the people in office now aren't doing it.

Not defending a popularly enacted law of the state to the maximum of their ability is lazy, plain and simple. It's tantamount to a public defender who thinks his client is probably guilty refusing to file appeals after a guilty verdict. There's a lot to be said for seeing the entire process through to the bitter end if only just to reinforce the integrity of whatever decision gets made. Otherwise, it looks like the stated will of the people got overturned not by the strength of the law or Constitutional imperative, but rather because elected officials gamed the system to their own ends.

you make the worst analogies ever.

How is it not apt?

they didn't represent the proposition in the initial trial. why would they have to pick it up on appeal? because butthurt, fear-mongering whackjobs want them to (and by now, that's all that's realistically left)?

if you're talking more about the initial decision not to defend it, then that's a different discussion, i imagine. but i didn't hear too much anger ginned up about it when that decision was made.

not to mention the fact that jumping in to defend it would be pretty difficult anyway. no one would buy any of his legal reasoning. it'd be a disingenuous circus. also, there is no way to defend it, as the prop 8 trial displayed pretty beautifully.

Technically they still are the named defendants and party to the case. They can pick it up anytime they want.

I think it all falls in under the same umbrella. I just think it's even more of a shame now because an appeal would get this issue in front of a court that, even if not less partial, would at least try to couch their decision-making on Constitutional law and not whatever it was that Walker was doing. Really, now that I've read it more closely, Walker's opinion is a really flimsy piece of work. There is quite a bit of caselaw (some of it that was supposed to be binding on the district court) that is directly on point with this case that blatantly contradicts some of his more sweeping legal conclusions. He didn't even bother to explain, distinguish, or even mention any of them. Walker's opinion reads as though this is the first time a federal court in his circuit (or any other) has ever dealt with gay marriage, which is convenient to say the least.

Difficult to defend? Probably. Impossible? Not really. But that's all beside the point. I just think it serves the interest of good government for the constitutionality of a law to be determined in as thorough a manner as possible, especially when it comes to overruling a popular vote. I just don't see how it's in anyone's interest to let an opinion as sloppily put together as Judge Walker's really be the last word on the rights of anyone, gay or straight.

you're really the only person in the world who is this harsh of a critic of the ruling. but that's neither here nor there i guess.

and if it's possible to legally defend prop 8 at this point, please tell me how. highly qualified and highly paid attorneys defending it sure as shit couldn't figure it out.

Scholars: Prop 8 Ruling May Be Tough To Overturn : NPR

but hey corganist says it sucks