<p>I find it interesting that people who would otherwise be considered “conservatives” consider it appropriate that Government policies which create a significant differentiation in the rights of two groups of people should be supported even if they can only command the support of about half the people in the state. My feeling is that laws which significantly affect the rights of a distinct group in society differently from everyone else should only be enacted if they have overwhelming support, and for rational reasons. A ban on gay marriage has neither. I understand that the radical right thinks it’s okay to enact laws which give advantages to the kind of people they approve of, while denying those same advantages to others, but I don’t see anything “conservative” in a political sense about such a posture.</p>
<p>In many states where it has passed by much larger margins than this slim lead in Cali I do not think you can just say the radical right is for such bans.</p>
<p>
No. I refered to the Calif court as “it”. Court issue opinions. Those opinion are personal opinions when they reflect the personal opinions of the justices who signed the opinions rather than the law as written. The current law was not contrary to the State constitution, it was consistent with the State constitution when the Constitution was written and the current law reflected the majority vote of the citizens of California. The court disregarded the will of the people and imposed its own personal will on the people. It is called judicial activism and it is wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What is really interesting is how liberals will overlook any level of judicial activism as long as the court is imposing their personal liberal policy preferences. </p>
<p>I almost wish conservatives believed in judicial activism so conversative justices could begin imposing their personal preferences and reverse the horrible trend of judical activism in American law. For example, how about if a conservative court ruled it was unconstitutional to have an abortion because life and citizenship begins at conception? The reality is that the US and most State constitutions are silent on such an issue, but it would be fun to give liberals a taste of their own medicine.</p>
<p>So-called “conservatives” DO believe in judicial activism. When it is something THEY want.</p>
<p>That’s how the Shrub wangled his way into the Oval Office.</p>
<p>The solution in Consolation’s post #18 is the only one that makes any sense to me.</p>
<p>(See similar thread here: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/253454-nj-democratic-judges-homophobes-bigots-you-decide.html?highlight=marriage#post3103200[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/253454-nj-democratic-judges-homophobes-bigots-you-decide.html?highlight=marriage#post3103200</a>)</p>
<p>Razorsharp, the fact that you are unaware of the huge mass of economically regressive judicial activism which has engulfed the American legal system over the past 30 years demonstrates the success of the “wedge” politics method of distracting voters with personal matters like homosexuality, religion and guns while picking their pockets. Anyone who has worked in the legal system knows the abject, even laughable folly of accusing “liberal judges” of “activism” while ignoring the wholesale gutting of individual economic rights over the past three decades by the real “judicial activists.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can’t support your thesis. </p>
<p>
No. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision was 7-2. There was no judicial actism there.</p>
<p>You’re wrong, razorsharp. First, the 7-2 decision was the one that held that the type of recount the Florida Supreme Court had ordered violated the Equal Protection Clause. But the decision that no constitutionally-permissible recount was possible by a certain deadline (a deadline that the US Supreme Court held was operative under Florida law) – and this was the key ruling, because it was the one that actually prevented a recount – was 5-4.</p>
<p>As for judicial activism, it was the three most “conservative” Justices – Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas – who presumed to tell the Florida Supreme Court that it had misinterpreted Florida law, i.e., the will of the Florida legislature. Talk about “actively” interposing yourself to reach the result you want!</p>
<p>Let’s see, exactly how many “liberal” pieces of Congressional legislation has the current US Supreme Court invalidated as supposedly unconstitutional? But that’s not judicial activism, no sir, no way. It’s only judicial activism when judges reach results “conservatives” don’t like.</p>
<p>What nonsense. And the amazing thing is that you probably actually believe it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I betcha he can.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Prove it. Go ahead and try.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, DonnaL you are wrong. The context of electing a President is the Federal system. States can’t just do whatever they want as the Florida Supreme Court was attempting to do. In fact, the better argument is that the US Supreme Court prevented the Florida Supreme Court from engaging in judicial activism given that the Fla court intended to disregard the will of the Florida legislature.</p>
<p>From the headnote 531 U. S. 70, 71 (2000):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, I’d like to see that long list of individual economic rights we have lost. I must have missed that one. Or is that the right to sue any business for anything for absurd amounts of money. Yes, a little bit of that has been curtailed. Like the amount has to have some relation to the actual loss.</p>