April 28, 201115 yr Don't think of it that way. You'll find judges recuse themselves for a lot of reasons, especially if a conflict of interest is present, but not for this. Instead of gay marriage, imagine this is a free speech case. In any free speech case, a judge will invariably expand or restrict laws that apply to him as well. That makes sense although in this case it was a specific set of circumstances that would tend to favor certain citizens, the judge being one of them. In a free speech case there is no pool of judges to select from who are not affected. It seems that it should have been disclosed and perhaps another judge not so situated be selected.
April 28, 201115 yr Author More reason of why our votes dont count. if we are allowed to burn our flags, protest our dead soldiers, allow the kkk to march (all of which I disagree with) then there is guaranteed free speech. Unless of course you are speaking for chritians issues I am sure. what is obsene to one is not obsene to another (hooters) (big Johnson) pot leafs
April 28, 201115 yr More reason of why our votes dont count. if we are allowed to burn our flags, protest our dead soldiers, allow the kkk to march (all of which I disagree with) then there is guaranteed free speech. Unless of course you are speaking for chritians issues I am sure. what is obsene to one is not obsene to another (hooters) (big Johnson) pot leafs WHAT?
April 28, 201115 yr At first blush I can see MT Ref's concern. However, as others have pointed out there can be many, many cases where there is a perceived conflict. Gays would argue that a heterosexual judge ruling on a homosexual issue is a conflict. Some would argue that an African-American judge ruling on a civil rights case is a conflict. You can go on and on. The real issue revolves around the law itself. If it's an egregious ruling there are remedies. I'm sure that someone in CA is seeking a remedy as we read this. I do not agree that the voters vote should always be law. We're not the most intelligent bunch and sometimes bad laws make it on a ballot.
April 28, 201115 yr Author WHAT? I believe a t-shirt with a pot leaf on it is obsene, I believe a t-shirt of marilyn manson claiming anything is obsene, but it is allowed.
April 28, 201115 yr My point is a judge over ruled what the voters voted in. Voters in calif voted agaisnt gay marriage and all of a sudden a GAY judge comes in a rules it unfair. I dont see straight judges all of a sudden come in a rule agaisnt a gay right. What if CA were to put on the ballot that blacks couldn't vote and it passed? Should it not be overturned as unfair? My point is not everything should be put on a ballot and voted on. Who are you or 51% of the population to tell anyone who they can and can't marry. I think the judge made the right decision here, gay or straight.
April 28, 201115 yr Would you feel the same way if it had been voted into law and a straight judge overturned it outlawing gay marriage? Still waiting....
April 28, 201115 yr Author Well then why put the stupid thing on the ballot anyway to let people vote if it dont matter anyway. Why is Obama the President, because he got more votes, does that matter, why dont a judge go over rule that and say no, since our votes dont matter. Should Obama be President if he won by 1 vote, you mean that all of those close to 51 % say he can be President
April 28, 201115 yr Well then why put the stupid thing on the ballot anyway to let people vote if it dont matter anyway. Why is Obama the President, because he got more votes, does that matter, why dont a judge go over rule that and say no, since our votes dont matter. Should Obama be President if he won by 1 vote, you mean that all of those close to 51 % say he can be President Al Gore got more votes in 2000 and the supreme court overturned it.
April 28, 201115 yr Author Al Gore got more votes in 2000 and the supreme court overturned it. I know and that is not fair either, it just goes to show our votes do not count. Dont put something on the ballot if voters dont get to decide the outcome.
April 28, 201115 yr I know and that is not fair either, it just goes to show our votes do not count. Dont put something on the ballot if voters dont get to decide the outcome. The system in California for getting such propositions on the ballot does not contemplate constitutional outcomes. I'm pretty certain that all you need is a certain number of supporters to sign and you'll get it on the ballot.
April 28, 201115 yr Author Still waiting.... It dont matter, the voters voted for it. If our votes count then any judge should not be able to just come in and say that isnt right. Is 1 mans opinion mean more that the thousands of voters. anytime a vote is overturned I do not think it is right, shouldnt the majority speak. Why vote now.
April 28, 201115 yr It dont matter, the voters voted for it. If our votes count then any judge should not be able to just come in and say that isnt right. Is 1 mans opinion mean more that the thousands of voters. anytime a vote is overturned I do not think it is right, shouldnt the majority speak. Why vote now. So if I get a proposition on the ballot make it illegal for blacks to vote and it passes that would be ok with you? Don't you think a judge should stike that down?
April 28, 201115 yr Author So if I get a proposition on the ballot make it illegal for blacks to vote and it passes that would be ok with you? Don't you think a judge should stike that down? I can make up stuff too to show my side too.
April 28, 201115 yr So much for Lincoln's speech at the Gettysburg Address................"and that Government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.