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.
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? Isn't that the job description of a judge, or are they merly administrative assistants who oversee trials in your "alternate-reality legal system"?
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.
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:2)
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? Isn't that the job description of a judge, or are they merly administrative assistants who oversee trials in your "alternate-reality legal system"?
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)