Be the change
you wish to see

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

Be the change
you wish to see

...JPB123

Give GW Bush a 3rd term! Vote for McCain...

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

I'm still a mod.

Finch.

I'm sorry, it must be difficult, despising everyone here as you do.

I don't despise everybody here, but I do get a little tired of people who prefer to spout off on issues they know nothing about. And it's especially irritating when those same people are too fucking lazy to even try to understand an issue before babbling about it with an air of absolute authority.

When people act like ignorant fools and attack me directly and personally in the process I have no problem calling them on it. If it bothers you, try not reading the thread. You'll feel better.

Finch.

How often has there been a unanimous decision by the State Supreme court. Yet in all the cases where there was not you did not seem to mind. That is process which 'the people' have agreed to with regards to workings of the Supreme court.

Get used to it.

No shit! Yet somehow it all works...and society abides, as was the plan when the nation began.

It would be interesting to see a stat on how many decisions were unanimous, and what the cases were related to. I bet it's a short list!

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

That's because eventually, all those people who are rabidly against this decision realize it affects their lives very little, or not at all. Then they get on with their lives and find something else to be rabidly against...

...JPB123

Give GW Bush a 3rd term! Vote for McCain...

Jack

"If U were smarter, I'd have nothing 2 do"

Unlike you, I prefer to actually read opinions before I criticize them. However, as I said at the beginning, there are good arguments against the majority. You, of course, wouldn't understand them, but that's not saying much.

"and if i read your statement correctly, you are saying that almost half of the justices can easily fit into your characterization of being among the 'hopelessly ignorant.'"

Well, then I guess you didn't read it correctly. What a surprise!

"IOW, there is a significant 'grey area' that produces the OPINION construct in this case."

Again, as I said from the beginning, there is room for disagreement, but ignorant rants don't qualify as legitimate counter-argument. To do that, you would have to actually take the time and effort to inform yourself, and we all know that ain't gonna happen.

"Perhaps you should try the bar exam again...Al Gore may be available to help you."

So predictable. Almost every ignorant fool on this board has called me a "bad lawyer" at some point or another, or has accused me of failing the bar exam. That's so fucking stupid. Of course, I might be a terrible lawyer, or a great one, or something in between. And maybe I failed the bar exam, or passed it, or maybe I never even took it. You would have no way of knowing. You only make yourself look more and more the fool.

Finch.

Now give us a lesson on the legislative and Executive given the Separation of powers.

Under this model, the state is divided into branches or estates, and each estate of the state has separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility. The normal division of estates is into the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers

If you aren't hopelessly ignorant, then this thread wasn't meant for you. It was intended for those few people who don't seem to get the basic idea that the "will of the people" is limited by state and federal constitutions.

Finch.

I guess another vote will have to take place.

Right. First, "the people" voted to create a statute, which, to be valid, has to also be constitutional. This time, "the people" will have to decide whether to amend the Constitution. Amending the Constitution, of course, is not as easy as creating a statute.

I've already explained all of this, so what's your point?

Finch.

This should be easy
cut & paste from a story...
~~~
"It's become apparent to me that the views of Californians are changing in this regard, and becoming much more favorable with respect to recognizing the social and economic bonds that marriage provides — regardless of the sex of the individuals," Feinstein said in a statement.

But all the rejoicing could come to an end if California voters approve a ballot initiative in November that would change the state's constitution to ban same-sex marriage, as has been done in 26 other states. The Secretary of State has not yet determined whether the sponsors have enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes the idea of an amendment, and Newsom said he will fight it vigorously.
~~~
The People can decide and sign the petition to get an initiative on the ballot and approve it like 26 other states already have.

so the process is still ongoing, Right ?

There is no point to all of this, it is the process of the will of the people. The Court cannot usurp all power and decide what they want and have it maintained without the will of the people.

Simple correct ?

The Court did not "usurp" power. It acted according to the role assigned to it by the California Constitution. As I explained in my original post (which maybe you ought to re-read), the PEOPLE assigned that role to the Court when they ratified the state constitution. They also approved the part that allows us, "the people" to amend the constitution if we don't like what it says or how it has worked.

As I already explained, the system is working EXACTLY as it is supposed to.

Finch.

Judical Review is unconstitutional. Correct ?

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.
This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams shortly before leaving office, but whose commission was not delivered as required by John Marshall, Adams' Secretary of State. When Thomas Jefferson assumed office, he ordered the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to withhold Marbury's and several other men's commissions. Being unable to assume the appointed offices without the commission documents, Marbury and three others petitioned the Court to force Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The Supreme Court denied Marbury's petition, holding that the statute upon which he based his claim was unconstitutional.

No, that is not correct. The people ratified the U.S. Constitution which provides for judicial review.

And, by the way, the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant here, because the same sex marriage cases are based on the California Constitution.

"Judical Review is unconstitutional. Correct ?"

Again, that is incorrect and it has nothing to do with this case.

Finch.