About Prop 8.... - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

exUte · 11-01-2008, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 8ballrollin

lawls - "prestigious"

I've known many in the Church who actually believe what Swart spews. It's clear he's bitter because he's never held one of those "prestigious" callings because he is far superior to those who have.

BarbaraGordon · 11-01-2008, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

So why waste time and money - on both sides - putting it to a vote?

It was done at least in part, if not primarily, to increase voter turnout among conservatives.

il Padrino Ute · 11-01-2008, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

It was done at least in part, if not primarily, to increase voter turnout among conservatives.

Hmmmm....

If it's true purpose is to try to slow down Obama's coronation, then I want a Yes for Prop 8 sign in my yard.

exUte · 11-01-2008, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

It was done at least in part, if not primarily, to increase voter turnout among conservatives.

Babs, Babs, ....... where do you come up with this stuff? Are you saying if the Cali Supreme Court hadn't overruled the will/vote of the people, it would have still been an issue?

SoCalCoug · 11-01-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by exUte

Babs, Babs, ....... where do you come up with this stuff? Are you saying if the Cali Supreme Court hadn't overruled the will/vote of the people, it would have still been an issue?

If the people hadn't violated the California Constitution with Prop. 22, Prop. 8 wouldn't have been necessary.

Do you agree that constitutional principles should not be compromised even if it's the "will of the people"?

TripletDaddy · 11-01-2008, 04:17 PM

I always get a kick out of the whole "will of the people" emotional gibberish.

Judges overturn things all the time. That is part of their job.

By definition, appellate courts are there to overturn things (also to uphold them).

The Yes camp uses that phrase to imply that the judges had no legal authority to make their decision, and that it was made unilaterally.

8ballrollin · 11-01-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I always get a kick out of the whole "will of the people" emotional gibberish.

Judges overturn things all the time. That is part of their job.

By definition, appellate courts are there to overturn things (also to uphold them).

The Yes camp uses that phrase to imply that the judges had no legal authority to make their decision, and that it was made unilaterally.

Signed,

Judge Ferguson

creekster · 11-01-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I always get a kick out of the whole "will of the people" emotional gibberish.

Judges overturn things all the time. That is part of their job.

By definition, appellate courts are there to overturn things (also to uphold them).

The Yes camp uses that phrase to imply that the judges had no legal authority to make their decision, and that it was made unilaterally.

WHen I read the opiniion it ididn't strike me as a great example of reasoned jurisprudence. It seemed very political. You are, of course, correct, that court's overturn things all the time, but amending the constitution is also a legitmate response to a court doing so.

Indeed, amending the california constution is ridiculously easy. It is unlike the federal consitution and is now abotu the size of a phone book.

TripletDaddy · 11-01-2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

WHen I read the opiniion it ididn't strike me as a great example of reasoned jurisprudence. It seemed very political. You are, of course, correct, that court's overturn things all the time, but amending the constitution is also a legitmate response to a court doing so.

Indeed, amending the california constution is ridiculously easy. It is unlike the federal consitution and is now abotu the size of a phone book.

I agree with you apeman. I am just opposed to the emotional rhetoric of "4 activist judges overturning the will of the people."

To the uninitiated, it gives the impression that these judges got together over lunch and decided on their own to take the initiative and overturn some elections. It is disingenuous at best.

I cannot confirm whether the decision was politically motivated, but I am certainly in zero position to sit here and claim that judges do not act with their interests in mind, so you could definitely be right.

Indy Coug · 11-01-2008, 04:42 PM

Does anyone honestly think that in the unlikely event that Prop 8 actually passes that it will stand up to California court scrutiny?

11-01-2008, 04:17 PM	#6
TripletDaddy Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 9,483	I always get a kick out of the whole "will of the people" emotional gibberish. Judges overturn things all the time. That is part of their job. By definition, appellate courts are there to overturn things (also to uphold them). The Yes camp uses that phrase to imply that the judges had no legal authority to make their decision, and that it was made unilaterally. __________________ Fitter. Happier. More Productive. "Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte

11-01-2008, 04:42 PM	#10
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	Does anyone honestly think that in the unlikely event that Prop 8 actually passes that it will stand up to California court scrutiny?