The Stranger has learned that last month the $37-billion Redmond-based software behemoth quietly withdrew its support for House bill 1515, the anti-gay-discrimination bill currently under consideration by the Washington State legislature, after being pressured by the Evangelical Christian pastor of a suburban megachurch.
You mean it's that easy? I got an idea...Let's all march on Redmond and threaten to boycott Microsoft...unless they fix all of these unnecessary s
Would that be the same consumer market that passed anti-gay marriage laws in 11 different states last November?
More specifically, those were state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS not just state laws. The whole reason for that is because they're afraid that activist judges would overturn laws already in the books. Currently 39 states have "Defense of Marriage Acts" as laws, as well as the federal DOMA.
Activist Judges? Please explain to me what an activist judge is. As far as my study of law is concerned, judges evaluate laws and determine their legitimacy as a balance against over-reaching legislatures. Are you claiming that these judges are ignoring precedent or US legal theory like the SCOTUS did in Bush vs. Gore?
I consider a federal judge who bases his or her rulings on FOREIGN LAWS or STATE LAWS rather than the US CONSTITUTION, or distorts the language away from it's original meaning when it was written, to be an activist judge.
When the rest of the court decided to condemn the Texas anti-sodomy law as an invasion of privacy, he voted to keep it because he just plain didn't like letting queers sodomize each other.
Send me a link to the text of his actual dissent, rather than your "interpretation" of it and I'll decide.
Knowing almost nothing about that case, and being for state's rights, and knowing that the word "sodomy" does not appear in the US Constitution, then I would say no, Scalia is not an activist in this case.
Knowing almost nothing about that case, and being for state's rights, and knowing that the word "sodomy" does not appear in the US Constitution
Look at Amendment IX [wikipedia.org]: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Many would argue that "others retained by the people" include the right to perform consensual gay sex acts on private property.
That merely states that the constitution itself does not deny rights. It does not imply that state's can not choose to deny rights that are not covered by the constitution. At least, that's how I read it.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
(At which point Republicans tend to say, 'Ah! See: the states can restrict these things'. But that's because they always stop reading too soon. We fought a big war about this stuff, and came up with some new amendments, notably, number fourteen. They hate that one, and I know those down south where
TO argue this point you would have to prove that there was an existing "right" to perform sodomy. I don't think you will find that this "right" existed after the fall of Rome.
When the rest of the court decided to condemn the Texas anti-sodomy law as an invasion of privacy, he voted to keep it because he just plain didn't like letting queers sodomize each other.
First of all, it wasn't the rest of the court; Rehnquist and Thomas also dissented. Second, their position was not that the Texas law is a just or wise law, but that it is not unconstitutional at the state level. That's obviously a debatable position and it gets into the intricacies of the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments,
So, what's a foreign law? Do international treaties, like the Geneva Convention count? As I remember, the US Constitution explicitly states that international treaties approved by the Senate are Federal law.
Secondly, in Mass., it was the state Supreme Court that ruled that the bans against gay-marriage violated the state constitution. Are you claiming that the Mass. state Supreme Court is packed with activist judges?
Also, isn't it the Federal Courts job to determine the original meaning the written law? I
You'll have to explain that one. Where has the Federal court gotten into the business of "righting social wrongs"? Are you saying the Federal government is not liable for tort? That would seem to contradict precedent, we've always (since the 1790's) allowed anyone in the world standing in the Federal courts to sue the Federal government. The Founding Fathers believed that this would keep us from acting like jerks in foriegn policy and thus jepordizing their "more perfect Union".
Where the Court upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action set asides.
"The Court based this on the fact that Congress was willing to accept the higher bids of MBEs if the bids were reflective of attempts to cover increased costs due to present effects of past discrimination"
See that "past discrimination" part? That's what I'm talking about.
So, what's a foreign law? Do international treaties, like the Geneva Convention count? As I remember, the US Constitution explicitly states that international treaties approved by the Senate are Federal law.
Do you have a reference for this? I've been wondering about that for awhile now, but wasn't able to find a reference myself. It certainly makes sense; why else would they need to be ratified?
It's in the Constitution, the part about foriegn treaties. Background is in the Federalist papers. Can't remember section and article at the moment, but a keyword search on Senate and treaty should find it.
What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean it's that easy? I got an idea...Let's all march on Redmond and threaten to boycott Microsoft...unless they fix all of these unnecessary s
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would that be the same consumer market that passed anti-gay marriage laws in 11 different states last November?
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Informative)
More specifically, those were state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS not just state laws. The whole reason for that is because they're afraid that activist judges would overturn laws already in the books. Currently 39 states have "Defense of Marriage Acts" as laws, as well as the federal DOMA.
http://www.domawatch.org has good information.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
So would youinclude Justice Scalia? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would that be activism, bunky?
Re:So would youinclude Justice Scalia? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So would youinclude Justice Scalia? (Score:2)
Knowing almost nothing about that case, and being for state's rights, and knowing that the word "sodomy" does not appear in the US Constitution, then I would say no, Scalia is not an activist in this case.
Amendment IX: A presumption of liberty (Score:5, Informative)
Knowing almost nothing about that case, and being for state's rights, and knowing that the word "sodomy" does not appear in the US Constitution
Look at Amendment IX [wikipedia.org]: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Many would argue that "others retained by the people" include the right to perform consensual gay sex acts on private property.
Re:Amendment IX: A presumption of liberty (Score:2)
Full faith and credit (Score:1)
It does not imply that state's can not choose to deny rights that are not covered by the constitution.
States that deny a given right to their citizens must still give "full faith and credit" [findlaw.com] to those states that do grant such a right.
Re:Amendment IX: A presumption of liberty (Score:1)
(At which point Republicans tend to say, 'Ah! See: the states can restrict these things'. But that's because they always stop reading too soon. We fought a big war about this stuff, and came up with some new amendments, notably, number fourteen. They hate that one, and I know those down south where
Re:Amendment IX: A presumption of liberty (Score:1)
Re:So would youinclude Justice Scalia? (Score:2)
First of all, it wasn't the rest of the court; Rehnquist and Thomas also dissented. Second, their position was not that the Texas law is a just or wise law, but that it is not unconstitutional at the state level. That's obviously a debatable position and it gets into the intricacies of the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments,
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Secondly, in Mass., it was the state Supreme Court that ruled that the bans against gay-marriage violated the state constitution. Are you claiming that the Mass. state Supreme Court is packed with activist judges?
Also, isn't it the Federal Courts job to determine the original meaning the written law? I
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Used to be. Now it seems to also be in the business of righting social wrongs, regardless of the law involved.
Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they botch it. Mostly when they let their personal politics get involved.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
And if judges were allowing
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448
Where the Court upheld the constitutionality of affirmative action set asides.
"The Court based this on the fact that Congress was willing to accept the higher bids of MBEs if the bids were reflective of attempts to cover increased costs due to present effects of past discrimination"
See that "past discrimination" part? That's what I'm talking about.
One example of many.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
Do you have a reference for this? I've been wondering about that for awhile now, but wasn't able to find a reference myself. It certainly makes sense; why else would they need to be ratified?
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
distortion is in the eye of the beholder (Score:2, Interesting)
Original meaning is not always clear, and distortion is in the eye of the beholder.
Remember, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court said the Civil-War ammendments of the US Constition did not require integrated schools.
Half a century later, in Brown v. Topeka, they reversed themselves.
Historically speaking, Plessy was probably closer to the original meaning of these am