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.
They're only "activist" if they don't decide in your favor, at least as far as Rightists in the U.S. are concerned.
I would contend that what you say is an unfair generalization. I consider it "activist" when a judge looks at FOREIGN LAWS to decide their rulings, or when they rule against the will of the people and decide to legislate from the bench. Judges should only judge the law in question with respect to the US Constitution (or state constitution, for state laws) and NOTHING ELSE - and without
Judges should only judge the law in question with respect to the US Constitution (or state constitution, for state laws) and NOTHING ELSE -
For my education, can you provide specific cases where judges made decisions based on foreign laws?
What about judges who refer to the non-constitutional sources, such as the Christian Bible, for the definition of marriage, when the word itself has many different historical meanings [reference.com]? I doubt you would call them 'activist judges'.
What if the answer cannot be found in the constitution?
When this country was young, many judges looked at the laws and conventions in other countries. Why? Because many of these other countries have similar legal systems & a similar moral context, and a similar decision made in another country may also work here.
For my education, can you provide specific cases where judges made decisions based on foreign laws?
In the recent SCOTUS ruling on capital punishment for minors, one (or more) of the justices DIRECTLY REFERRED TO THE LAWS OF THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES as the sole basis of their judgement. The ruling was that minors can NOT be put to death, no matter what. This was a few months ago. I'm too lazy too dig up a direct link, but you should be able to find it with that info.
Grutter v. Bollinger, affirmative action programs- Justices cited an international treaty
Quick question, did the US sign that treaty? Or was is solely between other nations?
Also, as for "cited", that doesn't necessarily mean the same as "used as the basis for a decision". Lots of people outside of the US have meaningful and insightful views on subjects. I often "cite" or "quote" people when defending my own decisions because they have the same opinions that I have, but are far more eloquent.
What if the answer cannot be found in the constitution?
Assuming the question is a constitutional one (as opposed to interpreting otherwise constitutional Federal laws), the Federal government has no business involving themselves in it.
If the Constitution doesn't address the issue, then it's generally not within the scope of Federal power. That pesky list of Congressional powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the pesky ninth and tenth Amendments are fairly clear on this point (obviously there are other s
Veni, Vidi, VISA:
I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.
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:3, Insightful)
I would contend that what you say is an unfair generalization. I consider it "activist" when a judge looks at FOREIGN LAWS to decide their rulings, or when they rule against the will of the people and decide to legislate from the bench. Judges should only judge the law in question with respect to the US Constitution (or state constitution, for state laws) and NOTHING ELSE - and without
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
For my education, can you provide specific cases where judges made decisions based on foreign laws?
What about judges who refer to the non-constitutional sources, such as the Christian Bible, for the definition of marriage, when the word itself has many different historical meanings [reference.com]? I doubt you would call them 'activist judges'.
What if the answer cannot be found in the constitution?
When this country was young, many judges looked at the laws and conventions in other countries. Why? Because many of these other countries have similar legal systems & a similar moral context, and a similar decision made in another country may also work here.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
In the recent SCOTUS ruling on capital punishment for minors, one (or more) of the justices DIRECTLY REFERRED TO THE LAWS OF THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES as the sole basis of their judgement. The ruling was that minors can NOT be put to death, no matter what. This was a few months ago. I'm too lazy too dig up a direct link, but you should be able to find it with that info.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Yes it can, if it infringes on one of the other laws in the Constitution (or other founding documents).
Most laws don't always have such a clear scope, unfortunately.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Lawrence v. Texas - homosexual sodomy, Justices cited two decisions by the European Court of Human Rights.
Grutter v. Bollinger, affirmative action programs- Justices cited an international treaty.
Atkins v. Virginia, execution of the mentally retarded, Justices cited an Amicus Curiae brief from the European Union.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Quick question, did the US sign that treaty? Or was is solely between other nations?
Also, as for "cited", that doesn't necessarily mean the same as "used as the basis for a decision". Lots of people outside of the US have meaningful and insightful views on subjects. I often "cite" or "quote" people when defending my own decisions because they have the same opinions that I have, but are far more eloquent.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1)
What if the answer cannot be found in the constitution?
Assuming the question is a constitutional one (as opposed to interpreting otherwise constitutional Federal laws), the Federal government has no business involving themselves in it.
If the Constitution doesn't address the issue, then it's generally not within the scope of Federal power. That pesky list of Congressional powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the pesky ninth and tenth Amendments are fairly clear on this point (obviously there are other s