Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere
Sometimes the judiciary does society a favour, as with dumping Jim Crow, creating incentives like suppression to stop illegal searches, etc. If you think the government is trying to screw you, you can bet the farm you'll be calling upon the courts to stop them. I also can't stress enough the plain constitutional truth that the judiciary is a co-equal branch with the other two. It states what the law means. That isn't monkeying with the law--that is doing its job. I'm far more concerned with the power hungry who bash the courts because they apparently like power too much.
|
No look its not the courts that are to blame, its the freaking judges! Some of them are totally out of whack. I have never had a problem with the judiciary being an independant co-equal branch of government, its the damn Congress i hate. This guy's ruling (in this instance) was a huge overstep on his mark, he was way out of line. Anyway why do you like judges, you're an attorney!
Quote:
And not every new idea is a bad one. The Constitution itself was cutting edge for its time. Good ideas are what leads to progress.
Some won't work out, but that is part of the growth process.
|
Not every idea is a bad one no, this one however is preposterous.
Quote:
|
On gay marriage, I oppose the amendment banning it. The idea of "ban this-ban that" is a bipartisan problem. Rather than focus on nuts and bolts of fixing bridges, potholes, programmes, etc, and spending wisely, politicians would rather pick on gays, guns, flag burners, smokers, trans-fats, etc. Other pay the costs of this crap in their wallets and happiness.
|
That idea never works with me, government always legislates to ban things, you'll always be in favor of banning things and you'll never be in favor of banning nothing will you? As for fixing bridges and potholes, good lord no! Congress
just passed a near 300 billion dollar highway bill last year and yet a bridge collapses! How much of that money was pork? Its better when Congress does sit around legislating things that
don't cost money, its CHEAPER!
Quote:
|
I can't find a reasonable basis for denying gays the right to marry as heterosexuals do insofar a secular issuance of marriage licence (religious marriage rules and ceremonies belong to the respective groups and have a separate and independent character).
|
So the traditional factor doesn't sway you? Nor the slippery slope argument nor the financial factor? Good of sciety/children raised by mom and dad? Good, because it shouldn't have to. Government reserves the right to regulate what it gives privellages on,marriage is not a god given right in most people's books otherwise there would be no restrictions at all.
Quote:
|
If this country values personal freedom and the pursuit of happiness, it has to put up or shut up on that absent compelling reasons. How does allowing gays to marry cause significant harm? If a strong and constitutional case can't be made how it does, and I can't think of one, then it really is a case of 'mind your own business' in my view.
|
It may not be a strong constitutional reason for ou but it is for a lot of others.