If The People Pass A Law By A Majority Vote, What Gives The Court The Right To Overturn It?
Prop 8
11-19) 18:32 PST SAN FRANCISCO — The state Supreme Court plunged back into the same-sex marriage wars Wednesday, agreeing to decide the legality of a ballot measure that repealed the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed in California
Six months after its momentous ruling that struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, the court granted requests by both sponsors and opponents of Proposition 8 to review lawsuits challenging the Nov. 4 initiative.
The vote was 6-1, Justice Joyce Kennard dissenting.
However, the court refused, 6-1, to let same-sex marriages resume while it considers Prop. 8’s constitutionality. Justice Carlos Moreno cast the dissenting vote.
Approved by 52 percent of voters, Prop. 8 restored the definition of marriage – a union of a man and a woman – that the court had overturned May 15. Kennard and Moreno voted with the majority in that 4-3 ruling.
The court agreed Wednesday to review two arguments by opponents of Prop. 8: that the measure exceeds the legal scope of a ballot initiative by allowing a majority to restrict a minority group’s rights, and that it violates the constitutional separation of powers by limiting judicial authority.
The justices also asked for arguments on whether Prop. 8, if constitutional, would nullify 18,000 same-sex weddings performed between when the court’s marriage ruling took effect in mid-June and Nov. 4. Attorney General Jerry Brown, who will defend Prop. 8 as the state’s chief lawyer, contends those marriages are legal, but sponsors of the initiative disagree.
The justices asked for written arguments to be submitted through Jan. 21. The court could hold a hearing as early as March, and a ruling would be due 90 days later.
This is nothing new the judges have decided that they are gods & can overturn any law they want provided that there is enough mula for them. What has happened is that no one stands up against the judges that perform their duty wrongfully. Seeing that they are not held accountable they continue to change ledgilative law into judicial law, I guess they don’t consider that one day they will be judged them selves.
i would never vote for Prop 8, but I believe in the will of the voters. It can always come to another vote, but that should be the only remedy.
Because in my opinion it’s unconstitutional for a bigoted majority to vote away rights of a minority they don’t like or respect.
How about if the state of Alabama decided to vote and say that only people of the most popular church could own property. I guess the Baptists would win and the Jews, Catholics, Episcopalians, etc. would be S.O.L.
Our constitution is supposed to protect from “tyranny of the majority” in cases that deal with a minority’s rights.
The people voted. They should leave it alone.
Everybody will blame it on liberals anyways so who cares either way.
It’s only a matter of time before the marriages will get passed by the popular vote.
How can an amendment to a Constitution be unconstitutional, um it’s now part of the Constitution
Sorry friend this is also a republic.
Simple. It doesn’t matter how large of a majority passes a law if it’s un-Constitutional like Prop 8 is!
Democracy does not mean mob rule. The rights of minoriteise have to be protected, what if you had a state with 87% men who made rape legal?
If the law violates a Constitutional clause such as equal Protection
maybe because it’s a violation of civil rights
They’re OBVIOUSLY much smarter than we, the common people.
You mean like the U.S. Supreme Court did in the 2000 Presidential election? I guess it just happens on occasion.
Because the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under law. What if we voted that Blacks must be in separate schools? What if we voted that Jews must be placed into concentration camps? A vote of the people can be unconstitutional too. Voter initiatives are a new phenomenon of the last 40 years or so. There is a train of thought that even voter initiatives per se are unconstitutional. The only way it cannot be changed is if the constitution itself were amended. Thats why the prohibitionists went that route and thats why another amendment was require to repeal it.
Just because the majority vote for it, that does not make it legal or right.
In a decision that was rejected, a minority portion of the population were denied rights that other Americans enjoy. This group should be allowed all rights that the majority have.
Read your history.
Insert Women’s right to vote, Equal rights for blacks or any other argument where a portion of the population are being discriminated against.
I think your final sentence pretty much sums up what is wrong with your view. If democracy is merely tyranny of the majority, then democracy is one of the most horrid forms of government there is.
In practice democracies build in safeguards which the courts are charged with upholding even against the will of the majority. 51% of the people cannot vote to enslave 49%. 99% cannot vote to enslave 1%. The people in your community cannot vote to take all of your possessions from you, rape your wife, and torture you. If you believe that democracy should be nothing more than whatever the majority wills, you think that grave infringements on minority rights should be allowed. If, for example, whites outnumber blacks and want to strip blacks of their rights and enslave them again, your version of democracy sees nothing wrong with this.
I could keep going, but these should be enough examples to show why pure democracy is really no more feasible than pure communism. The will of the majority should be overruled by basic protections of minority rights. If democracy is two wolves voting to eat a sheep, democracy is nothing more than a dictatorship of the many, and is a failure.
See when the voters vote the liberal way it is off limits the people have spoken, if it doesn’t go the liberals way the courts and their worthless punk judges run in and think they have the right to change it, democracy is dead in American.
Gays don’t deserve special rights, they want to be like everyone else, or so they say, thank God for AIDS
RIP democracy 1776-2008
Okay, this is a democratic republic. What that means is that the majority rules when it comes to electing officials. But there are times when the “majority rules” doesn’t apply.
People’s civil rights should NEVER be put to a vote. At one time it was illegal in most states for blacks and whites to marry. At the time these laws were passed, the vast majority of citizens supported them. If it had been put to a vote, Proposition Whatevernumber, banning whites from marrying blacks, that Proposition would have passed overwhelmingly. Would that have made it right? Would that have made it right to prevent a white from marrying a black person that he or she loved? At one time, if segregation had been put to a vote, it would have passed overwhelmingly. Does this help you put it into perspective?
That is one of the most important functions of the courts. To protect the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority.
How would you like to stand by and watch people vote upon your humanity, as if these people had ANY right to judge your humanity.
This is a matter of civil liberties. Civil liberties are NOT, I repeat NOT, decided upon a majority vote. So I hope this Proposition is overturned, that would be justice, and I will shed no tears for those who voted in favor of it.