Louisiana Judge's Improper Ruling
Recoup
Join Date: 2004-04-25 Member: 28195Members
Join Date: 2004-04-25 Member: 28195Members
<div class="IPBDescription">Another jerk...</div> About a week ago, the case of g@y marriages was brought to the state of Louisiana. Now, when you want to pass judgement on something like this, you vote yes or no. The option was given to the Louisiana people, and they voted.
78% said "NO" to the option. That is OVER a critical majority vote (60%)
Guess what the judge did?
He threw the votes out and said "I'm right, you're wrong, so I'm making it legal."
So, the judge threw out the 78% votes saying they DIDNT want g@y marriages, and put his own opinion in, making it basically to the point where he has become the one who makes the laws.
Last I checked, we were still a country where the Legislative Branch MADE the laws, the Executive branch serves and protects those laws, and the judiciary branch INTERPRETS the laws. THe judiciary branch does not have the permission to change laws as they see fit, they made it that way so that one wouldnt be more powerful than the other.
Now, we are a Constitutional Republic, or a Democracy in other words. The preamble of the constituation says "We the people..." meaning that the power is left in our hands, and when we vote NO and ONE judge says yes and it makes it legal, we turn into a dictatorship.
Anyone else think that this guy should get thrown off the court system?
78% said "NO" to the option. That is OVER a critical majority vote (60%)
Guess what the judge did?
He threw the votes out and said "I'm right, you're wrong, so I'm making it legal."
So, the judge threw out the 78% votes saying they DIDNT want g@y marriages, and put his own opinion in, making it basically to the point where he has become the one who makes the laws.
Last I checked, we were still a country where the Legislative Branch MADE the laws, the Executive branch serves and protects those laws, and the judiciary branch INTERPRETS the laws. THe judiciary branch does not have the permission to change laws as they see fit, they made it that way so that one wouldnt be more powerful than the other.
Now, we are a Constitutional Republic, or a Democracy in other words. The preamble of the constituation says "We the people..." meaning that the power is left in our hands, and when we vote NO and ONE judge says yes and it makes it legal, we turn into a dictatorship.
Anyone else think that this guy should get thrown off the court system?
Comments
<a href='http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/05/g-a-y.marriage.ap/' target='_blank'>http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/05/g-a-y.marriage.ap/</a>
stupid word filter. remove the dashes from the above address for the real URL.
^ above is an educated speculation. I'm not entirely sure of the facts, feel free to correct me.
Now, we are a Constitutional Republic, or a Democracy in other words. The preamble of the constituation says "We the people..." meaning that the power is left in our hands, and when we vote NO and ONE judge says yes and it makes it legal, we turn into a dictatorship.
Anyone else think that this guy should get thrown off the court system? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, let's see. WE the people. Yes, it means that power is left in our hands, but it's a limited power. It is not "the majority of the people may decide on any sort of law and put it into effect, even if it limits the rights of other, equal citizens." Are we supposed to have the power to restrict the rights of AMERICAN citizens, rights that all other American citizens have?
Didn't think so.
It amazes me that such a thing even made it to court, so many years ago. I don't consider his act an act of dictatorship (so to speak) because he was enforcing what should have pre-emptively been stopped cold and never made it to courts in the first place. He's doing the work of the government; if we allow the People to decide that certain factions among them may have rights that other factions cannot, then what does that make us?
Civil rights groups are pushing for an equality amendment to the Constitution... should this EVEN HAVE TO HAPPEN? Is it generally not accepted that we do not have the "right" to limit the rights of other citizens?
I don't think he should be thrown off the court system - he should be given a damn medal for doing the right thing.
I can't get to the link, but I'd imagine that it was thrown out because it is unconstitutional (in the judge's interpretation at least). So, in other words, he was doing his job.
Edit: Well, after editing the link so it works (duh skulkbait). I see here that he threw it out for a similar reason as above: it violates state laws already in place. So, again, he was doing his job.
Oh, and let me just say that the laws of our country exist to protect the rights of the MINORITY. If all we cared about was what the majority wanted then we wouldn't need rights at all would we?
The problem I see with equal protection when it comes to this issue is that if courts decide to sanction 2 people of the same sex as marriage, they will have to sanction all alternative lifestyles (polygamy, incest etc.). BTW, polygamist are now starting to push that issue to the courts as we speak..
Let the people decide the definition of institutions, not the courts.
That IS a dictatorship. Now he controls the power, and the people's votes are worthless. Why? Thats not right. As a judge you DONT make the law.
The problem I see with equal protection when it comes to this issue is that if courts decide to sanction 2 couples of the same sex as marriage, they will have to sanction all alternative lifestyles (polygamy, incest etc.). BTW, polygamist are now starting to push that issue to the courts as we speak..
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa, whoa, hold on.
Er, I'll assume you mean 2 people of the same sex, not two couples. ^^
As for polygamy and incest - I think the legal reasons against polygamy are that it would result in huge legal headaches (certifications, divorces, etc. - I remember a case about some guy that got married to different women in different states, and none of the women knew about the others).
I'm not sure what the legal reasons against incest would be, since I don't know much about it. But there's a world of difference between two people that love each other and want to get married, as opposed to a group of people that want to have multiple spousal relationships at the same time, and people that want to marry their relatives...
That IS a dictatorship. Now he controls the power, and the people's votes are worthless. Why? Thats not right. As a judge you DONT make the law. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I remember correctly, the constitution overrides all powers including votes... Otherwize the American people could just vote that one man gets all the power and it would be so. The only way that the issue can be considered open to debate is either that it can be proven that g@y marrages are not a covered topic under the constitution, or that the constitution goes through the process of change so that the issue is open to vote.
That IS a dictatorship. Now he controls the power, and the people's votes are worthless. Why? Thats not right. As a judge you DONT make the law. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Did you read the article? He struck it down because it violated the law (aparently because two issues were lumped together). This happens all the time, and it is how the system is supposed to work.
Here, watch:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BATON ROUGE, Louisiana (AP) -- A state judge Tuesday threw out a Louisiana constitutional amendment banning **** marriage, less than three weeks after it was overwhelmingly approved by the voters.
District Judge William Morvant said the amendment was flawed as drawn up by the Legislature because it had more than one purpose: banning not only **** marriage but also civil unions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And in the very next paragraph:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Michael Johnson, an attorney for supporters of the amendment, said he will appeal the ruling.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So tell me, when was the last time anyone was allowed to appeal a dictator's ruling? This is the system at work. Nothing to see here, move along.
Here is the whole of the article, for the lazy:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BATON ROUGE, Louisiana (AP) -- A state judge Tuesday threw out a Louisiana constitutional amendment banning **** marriage, less than three weeks after it was overwhelmingly approved by the voters.
District Judge William Morvant said the amendment was flawed as drawn up by the Legislature because it had more than one purpose: banning not only **** marriage but also civil unions.
Michael Johnson, an attorney for supporters of the amendment, said he will appeal the ruling.
A **** rights group challenged the amendment on several grounds, arguing among other things that combining the question of **** marriage and the issue of civil unions in one ballot question violated state law.
The courts had rejected a similar argument before the September 18 election, saying it was premature.
Some 78 percent of those voting favored the amendment. The vote was part of a national backlash against **** marriage, which followed last year's Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling allowing **** couples to wed.
Proposals to restrict marriage to a man and a woman are on the ballot in November in 11 states: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Missouri voters, like those in Louisiana, overwhelmingly approved such an amendment earlier this year.
The Louisiana Legislature pushed through the proposed ban this spring. Louisiana already had a law against **** marriage, but conservatives warned that unless it was put in the state constitution, a Louisiana court could one day follow the Massachusetts example.
Christian conservatives launched a vigorous grassroots campaign to secure passage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since it is probably inevitable that this will become a discussion about g@y marriage, I'll make my opinion known: I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage at all, since it seems to be an entirely religious ideal anyway.
That IS a dictatorship. Now he controls the power, and the people's votes are worthless. Why? Thats not right. As a judge you DONT make the law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry to break it to you, but America isn't a republic. Judges have been pwning up laws, those instituted by ballot or by representatives, since before you or I could spell "checks and balances." And like we've all said, he based his decision on the banning of civil unions as well as marriage, which believe it or not, is <b>not</b> a minor detail. Civil unions have always been allowed in Louisiana, as far as I can tell, and banning them through the constitutional amendment would be illegal.
That IS a dictatorship. Now he controls the power, and the people's votes are worthless. Why? Thats not right. As a judge you DONT make the law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry to break it to you, but America isn't a republic. Judges have been pwning up laws, those instituted by ballot or by representatives, since before you or I could spell "checks and balances." And like we've all said, he based his decision on the banning of civil unions as well as marriage, which believe it or not, is <b>not</b> a minor detail. Civil unions have always been allowed in Louisiana, as far as I can tell, and banning them through the constitutional amendment would be illegal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quite the contrary, America is very republic. Every american gets a vote on election day, but if you recall your social studies class in high school, the electoral college decides the outcome. Meaning, usually the outcome is based on the voting of the states, though it is entirely in their ability to vote contrary to what the state voted for. The entire country could in theory vote for Kerry and then Bush still gets elected because those in the electoral college disregard the votes given by their states.
Not to bring politics into it, but it is the same for judges. It is entirely up to them, though most times, they heavily rely on the outcome of a jury to decide on his behalf. It is almost unheard of for a judge to contradict the ruling of the jury. If the judge felt strongly enough, he could legally overrule any vote.
Correct? Legally, yes. Ethically, probably not.
Look, a judge can OVERRIDE LAWS. As in, determine it to be NOT LEGAL, or UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Nowhere do they have the ability to DECLARE SOMETHING LEGAL.
So a judge can throw a case out of court, but he can not, I repeat, CAN NOT call something else legal in it's stead. That is a gross overstepping of the judge's bounds.
Case closed. What the judge did was fine, he did not declare anything legal in it's stead, he simply pointed out one amendment cannot ban two things at once (I guess).
What the massachusetts judges did was wrong, on several accounts.
But anyhow, on an entierally different subject, what don't the g@y advocates push for a civil union and screw over fighting for the term g@y marrage?
How is g@y marrige a less discriminating term than civil union?
Some people just make no sense.
But anyhow, on an entierally different subject, what don't the g@y advocates push for a civil union and screw over fighting for the term g@y marrage?
How is g@y marrige a less discriminating term than civil union?
Some people just make no sense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever heard of "seperate but equal"?
Hmmmm.
But anyhow, on an entierally different subject, what don't the g@y advocates push for a civil union and screw over fighting for the term g@y marrage?
How is g@y marrige a less discriminating term than civil union?
Some people just make no sense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever heard of "seperate but equal"?
Hmmmm. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
errr... what?!?
Seperate but equal isn't even related.
Again, how is g@y marrige less offensive a word than civil union? If I was g@y, I'd go for civil union over g@y marrige anyday - g@y marriage has the word g@y in it, which is just as negative as connation in our society as "***".
But anyhow, on an entierally different subject, what don't the g@y advocates push for a civil union and screw over fighting for the term g@y marrage?
How is g@y marrige a less discriminating term than civil union?
Some people just make no sense. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever heard of "seperate but equal"?
Hmmmm. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
errr... what?!?
Seperate but equal isn't even related.
Again, how is g@y marrige less offensive a word than civil union? If I was g@y, I'd go for civil union over g@y marrige anyday - g@y marriage has the word g@y in it, which is just as negative as connation in our society as "***". <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You act as though g@y coulpes would run out and say "We're g@y married!" or "We're g@y engaged!". Obviously not.
And if a civil union is so similar to marriage, then why does it need to be called something else?
But is that what happened here?
Anyway, judges just don't wake up in the morning and go "y'know what? I think i'll fsk with the state's laws today, right after I make coffee and pancakes I'm going straight down to the courthouse to WREAK HAVOC! Then I'll have another coffee and go to lunch". There will be a judgement published somewhere, if you feel like reading it.
The judge recognized a political move that was made to keep legal rights from g@y couples, and stopped it.
So, it doesn't matter if you do/don't believe in "g@y marriage," because that is not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is "does a g@y couple have legal rights in the eyes of the government."
Stop thinking marriage. If a **** couple is truly in love, or whatever, and they live together, there should be legal entitlements involved, especially tax breaks, hospital care rights, etc.
That just makes sense. So, giving it a name (aka, Civil Union) really means that a couple can get legal rights without getting "married." The government deliberately attempted to get the people to ban giving couples legal rights in the "g@y marriage" package. Hey, ban g@y marriage all you want, but at least leave the door open for the legal rights.
That's why the judge threw it out. It's unconstitutional in my book, regardless of if the people voted for it or not. I would've as well.
because they are obviously interpreting the law incorrectly, or doing something wrong, if all their decisions are overturned at the supreme court. and iirc they also are the most liberal (in terms of activism) of the circuit courts of appeal.
because they are obviously interpreting the law incorrectly, or doing something wrong, if all their decisions are overturned at the supreme court. and iirc they also are the most liberal (in terms of activism) of the circuit courts of appeal. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesn't mean that they are interpreting it incorrectly, mearly that they are interpreting it differently.
Er, I'll assume you mean 2 people of the same sex, not two couples. ^^<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah typo, sorry for the confusion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for polygamy and incest - I think the legal reasons against polygamy are that it would result in huge legal headaches (certifications, divorces, etc. - I remember a case about some guy that got married to different women in different states, and none of the women knew about the others).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Difficulty and confusion is not a valid reason why to ban polygamy denying rights to consenting adults. If someone were to argue that, they will likely lose, especially if the opposition uses "equal protection under the law" clause, as proponents of **** marriage have done so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not sure what the legal reasons against incest would be, since I don't know much about it. But there's a world of difference between two people that love each other and want to get married, as opposed to a group of people that want to have multiple spousal relationships at the same time, and people that want to marry their relatives... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are making a moral/ethical distinctions, which is good and therefore the reason why this issue of defining an institution should be left to you and I via the legislative process, not the judicial. If courts sanction one alternative lifestyle under “equal protection” clause, it must sanction other alternative lifestyles (polygamy etc) as marriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It doesn't mean that they are interpreting it incorrectly, mearly that they are interpreting it differently. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or it could mean they are being extremely activist putting way too much bias in their rulings. They are throwing out laws that they don’t like or agree with. Just a side note, when judges put one their black robe, it is suppose symbolize that from the time the put it on, to the time they take it off, their duty is to disregard bias and make a impartial decision. I did a research paper and can point out some laws they decided to nullify. Any reasonable minded person would think these rulings are absurd.
Difficulty and confusion is not a valid reason why to ban polygamy denying rights to consenting adults. If someone were to argue that, they will likely lose, especially if the opposition uses "equal protection under the law" clause, as proponents of **** marriage have done so. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are exactly right, but since when is that the issue? Legalizing one thing does not mean legalizing something else that may be similar is right around the corner. IF this were true we would all be in arush to make sure all handguns were banned, because if they were legal, obviously next people would want to own weapons-grade plutonium (I'm not saying I'm all yay for guns, just demostrating some flawed logic here)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You are making a moral/ethical distinctions, which is good and therefore the reason why this issue of defining an institution should be left to you and I via the legislative process, not the judicial. If courts sanction one alternative lifestyle under ?equal protection? clause, it must sanction other alternative lifestyles (polygamy etc) as marriage.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You were referring to a post about incest here, right? Making incest illegal is FAR from being a purely moral decision. Incest is illegal so people don't go around making extremely messed up kids, it's not fair to the kids.
You're saying that any "equal protection" arguments could also be used to defend polygamy, and maybe you're right, but that's still NOT THE ISSUE HERE. It's an issue for another time (and I for one think it would make great discussion).