NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6607648/

Foes sought ‘protection’ from state court
Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state Supreme Court's usurpation of power."

Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right "to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court."


could some one please explain how allowing homosexuals to marry equates to tyranny of the government and is upsetting the protection of the citizens of massachusetts?

Meh ... one person's opinion. SCOTUS has already said they're not going to overturn the Mass. SC's decision.

It's amazing, you know. The biggest critics of the court's decision aren't even from this state. When you read the letters to the editors in the Boston Globe or the Worcester T&G, you've got three or four talking about how great we are for being so tolerant for every one condemning the state for the ruling.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6607648/

could some one please explain how allowing homosexuals to marry equates to tyranny of the government and is upsetting the protection of the citizens of massachusetts?

Better yet, could someone explain how a court can "usurp" the power that was given to it at it's formation?

could some one please explain how allowing homosexuals to marry equates to tyranny of the government and is upsetting the protection of the citizens of massachusetts?

Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't equate.

But letting a court rewrite the laws (not its job) to override the legislature (the folks chosen by the people to write the laws) does.

Its th elegislatures job to make law. Not the courts. If the legislature isn't doing as the people wish, it is the people's right and duty to vote them out, and vote in people who will change the laws. This is how we change things. This is how it's SUPPOSED to work.

And it doesn't matter whether the issue at hand is gay marriage, smoking regulations, or leash laws.

Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't equate.

But letting a court rewrite the laws (not its job) to override the legislature (the folks chosen by the people to write the laws) does.

Its th elegislatures job to make law. Not the courts. If the legislature isn't doing as the people wish, it is the people's right and duty to vote them out, and vote in people who will change the laws. This is how we change things. This is how it's SUPPOSED to work.

And it doesn't matter whether the issue at hand is gay marriage, smoking regulations, or leash laws.

The court never rewrote anything. They just made a ruling that the state's marriage laws did not specifically exclude gays, and as such, they could wed under state laws. This illusion that the Mass. Supreme Court is going around rewriting Commonwealth law is just ridiculous.

Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't equate.

But letting a court rewrite the laws (not its job) to override the legislature (the folks chosen by the people to write the laws) does.

Its th elegislatures job to make law. Not the courts. If the legislature isn't doing as the people wish, it is the people's right and duty to vote them out, and vote in people who will change the laws. This is how we change things. This is how it's SUPPOSED to work.

And it doesn't matter whether the issue at hand is gay marriage, smoking regulations, or leash laws.
the court did NOT rewrite the law, it RULED that under the US constitution, you know the big important thing, homosexuals cannot be legally prevented from marrying. they didnt make any laws, go read some books on law and the governments set up

the court did NOT rewrite the law, it RULED that under the US constitution, you know the big important thing, homosexuals cannot be legally prevented from marrying. they didnt make any laws, go read some books on law and the governments set up

Actually it ruled that under our state's Constitution, marriage is not exclusive to heterosexuals.

But letting a court rewrite the laws (not its job) to override the legislature (the folks chosen by the people to write the laws) does.


Courts don't re-write laws, they interpret them.

A State Supreme Court has the right to declare a law unconstitutional and are well within their mandate for doing so. It's not "rebel judges", but judges who have deemed that a law does not jibe with the State Constitution and have declared it null and void.

It's sort of like SCOTUS did when they declared all sodomy laws in all states to be unconstitutional. They weren't overstepping their bounds or creating new laws. They were taking bad laws off the books.

That's what a Supreme Court does. It's what any court does. That's why many defense lawyers cite precedence in their deliberations.

If we had to rely solely on the letter of the law and abolished the spirit of the law, then we would be in a paper dictatorship. Laws are not carved in stone, but are maleable, fluid things that change with society. Birth is a difficult process, yes, but everyone is better off for it happening.

Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't equate.

But letting a court rewrite the laws (not its job) to override the legislature (the folks chosen by the people to write the laws) does.

Its th elegislatures job to make law. Not the courts. If the legislature isn't doing as the people wish, it is the people's right and duty to vote them out, and vote in people who will change the laws. This is how we change things. This is how it's SUPPOSED to work.

And it doesn't matter whether the issue at hand is gay marriage, smoking regulations, or leash laws.

Funny, since that isn't what happened.

The court simply did it's job - interpreting the law in light of the Mass. Constitution. It found that, according to the Mass. Constitution (which is *suppose* to interpret), laws banning homosexual marriage were unconstitutional.

It is the exact same thing as SCOTUS finding segregation laws unconstitutional, was that them rewriting the laws unfairly as well?

could some one please explain how allowing homosexuals to marry equates to tyranny of the government and is upsetting the protection of the citizens of massachusetts?
I know you are being rhetorical but . . .
Just the opposite; while I am not anarchist I am just following a sequence of logic:

NOT allowing homosexuals to marry leads is authoritarian
authoritarian is tyranny (or when it becomes extreme)

Therefore (coz of my mad geometry skillz) not allowing homosexuals to marry is tyranny (or is the slippery slope to it)

the court did NOT rewrite the law, it RULED that under the US constitution, you know the big important thing, homosexuals cannot be legally prevented from marrying. they didnt make any laws, go read some books on law and the governments set up

Just to clarify, the Mass. Supreme Court actually ruled in light of the Mass. Constitution, not the US one, although I would agree that the US Constitution would also lead to the same conclusion.

Just to clarify, the Mass. Supreme Court actually ruled in light of the Mass. Constitution, not the US one, although I would agree that the US Constitution would also lead to the same conclusion.one of them, i dont care, we got it cleared up already, move on

insert bump here

Except, of course, that the court did not strike down the marriage law.

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/tauro/pdf/largess.pdf

...rather than "striking down the marriage laws," which no [party] argue[d was] an appropriate form of relief, Defendant SJC "reformulat[ed]" the term "civil marriage" to mean "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others"

Hence, rewriting the law.

Except, of course, that the court did not strike down the marriage law.

http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/tauro/pdf/largess.pdf



Hence, rewriting the law.

No, not rewriting the law. Interpreting the law.

@ Iranamok: Except that, from what you've just written, he didn't so much rewrite a law as try to add another definition to the Dictionary.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6607648/



could some one please explain how allowing homosexuals to marry equates to tyranny of the government and is upsetting the protection of the citizens of massachusetts?

:headbang:
What's more to the point is the question of "Why is my lovelife any business of anyone who isn't directly involved in it?" People need to learn to concern themselves with their own business and stay OUT of everyone else's UNLESS they are requested to intervene. That would solve SOOOO many problems.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6607648/



could some one please explain how allowing homosexuals to marry equates to tyranny of the government and is upsetting the protection of the citizens of massachusetts?
I think that the argument that I'd make is that the courts are legislating. Which really, they aren't supposed to do that.

Well hell, I didn't know the language was that fluid.

Great! All I have to do now is get a court to redefine define "Sdaeriji" as "one who Owes Iranamok $10,000" and my problems are over. :D

Courts don't get to "interpret" the law that way. They interpret the CONSTITUTION by applying it to laws and saying whether the law is consititutional or not.

If it is, then it must be untouched.

If it is not, then it must be removed and the issue sent back to the legislature for reworking.

No other options are acceptable.

Better yet, could someone explain how a court can "usurp" the power that was given to it at it's formation?


:headbang:

What the hell did they think a SC was FOR? Which is another reason why I mentioned the probability that stupidity may be a large factor in this. I mean, why bitch about ANYTHING unless you know how and why something functions? That's nuts. They should at the very least EDUCATE themselves *BEFORE* they start whining.

Thank you for pointing this out.

Well hell, I didn't know the language was that fluid.

Great! All I have to do now is get a court to redefine define "Sdaeriji" as "one who Owes Iranamok $10,000" and my problems are over. :D

Courts don't get to "interpret" the law that way. They interpret the CONSTITUTION by applying it to laws and saying whether the law is consititutional or not.

If it is, then it must be untouched.

If it is not, then it must be removed and the issue sent back to the legislature for reworking.

No other options are acceptable.

I quote for you the first part of Article III, Section II

"Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority"

note how it says "the Laws of the United States." This is from the US Constitution about the US Supreme Court, but I'm pretty sure that State Constitutions will ahve a similar clause.

Whats the difference between legislating from the courts and interpreting the law?

Depends on which side you support.

I'm sure if something happens to Roe v Wade or some other major decision in the next 4 years, the same arguments will be made, but with the sides reversed.

Whats the difference between legislating from the courts and interpreting the law?

Depends on which side you support.

I'm sure if something happens to Roe v Wade or some other major decision in the next 4 years, the same arguments will be made, but with the sides reversed.
No, I'll still say that the Supreme Court should be allowed to interpret the law, I'll just complain that they didn't do it right. But then again, I just like to complain.

Whats the difference between legislating from the courts and interpreting the law?

Depends on which side you support.

I'm sure if something happens to Roe v Wade or some other major decision in the next 4 years, the same arguments will be made, but with the sides reversed.
I'd say interpreting the laws involves the courts telling the Legislature that a law is unconst. and that they need to fix it so it is const.

When the courts legislate they come up with the remedy themselves.

Who cares? Gay rights never hurt anyone.

I think that the argument that I'd make is that the courts are legislating. Which really, they aren't supposed to do that.

Legisilating = writing a new law and adding it to the books. not what courts do.

Interpreting = looking at a pre-existing law and determining - without CHANGING it - exactly what it means according to its pre-existing wording and if that wording is in line with the governing constitution. what courts do.

Legisilating = writing a new law and adding it to the books. not what courts do.

Interpreting = looking at a pre-existing law and determining - without CHANGING it - exactly what it means according to its pre-existing wording and if that wording is in line with the governing constitution. what courts do.

The courts found the current law unconstitutional (interpretation) and provided a picture of what must be done to fix it (also interpretation).

Then, when the Mass. legislature was trying to write new, constitutional legislation (as per their job), they *asked* the court what would suffice (which is interpretation) and has been part of our government since Marbury v. Madison.

I really don't see a problem here.

The courts found the current law unconstitutional (interpretation) and provided a picture of what must be done to fix it (also interpretation).

Then, when the Mass. legislature was trying to write new, constitutional legislation (as per their job), they *asked* the court what would suffice (which is interpretation) and has been part of our government since Marbury v. Madison.

I really don't see a problem here.

I must have written unclearly. There is no problem. By without changing I meant that the courts do not change laws. And an interpretation cannot make a law go from ABCD to ZJKF. It could say a law needs to be modified to ABC(C+)D or something like that based on the need to make it fit the constitution (the pre-existing and supersceeding law -and then as you said, the court doesn't even write the modification), but the court does not and cannot change the basic nature of the law. Some people here were talking as though the court took a law about watering one's lawn and from that made a whole new law saying that homosexuals had the right to marry instead of saying that a law, as written, did not fit the guidelines of the constitution, and deciding upon that basis.

i personally liked "pricks" but whatever, and still the same problem arises here. people posting support it because they havnt the faintest clue how law and government work and like to be spoonfed bullshit soundbites.

courts have this thing called judicial review, kind of old now, this allows the court to go "that law is stupid and unconstitutional, change it to this to make it legal" or something of the sort, you know how they said "you cannot prevent african americans from voting or making it excessively hard to do so". also, homosexual marriage shouldnt even be an issue seeing as how its a religious issue and the state should stay the fuck away from religion

also a great soundbite from george bush's mouth piece i heard on npr, and i quote more or less, Bush wants to keep the ability to make homosexual marriage legal "out of the hands of activist judges and local officials." wow, theres some "small government" for you, making sure the judges can only do their JOB when its in your favor and making sure LOCAL OFFICIALS cant decide anything for the area in which they are elected.


go go gadget fascism!

Further proof that the far right Fundies believe that gays can spread homosexuality through bites much like zombies.

:D