Join Us Here Tuesday Night!

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

That's going to end up back in the courts and any justice voting for it to be upheld is an anti-constitutional nut case.

Maybe I remember it wrong, but wasn't proposition 8 about a change to the Californian constitution?

If, on the other hand, your "anti-constitutional" refers to the US constitution, you're simply wrong: the US Supreme Court, in Lawrence v. Texas, explicitly left the issue open. For now, reasonable federal judges can come out on both sides gay marriage, and on state bans of it.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Yes, it's open with the USSC -- they can overturn any pass decisions unless it is an Amendment to the US Constitution, but voters have been blocked from changing the California constitution before by the courts on the basis that is was against the US Constitution. Ahnold was against passing it, although his current ratings may not be helpful. I do not believe this can stand even if it goes from the California courts to federal judges. The money spent to not pass it is still there and lawyers are lined up to test the proposition's validity in the courts.

The California Marriage Amendment, to be inserted as an exception to the state's equal protection clause (which would immediately precede it), reads as follows:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Incidentally, this is exactly like the mantra in Animal Farm -- "All animals are equal, except some animals are more equal than others." I'm not saying that individuals who voted for Prop 8 are would-be despots, but, then, maybe I am.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

Incidentally, this is exactly like the mantra in Animal Farm -- "All animals are equal, except some animals are more equal than others." I'm not saying that individuals who voted for Prop 8 are would-be despots, but, then, maybe I am.

No disagreement here. It's just that sometimes, would-be despots have constitutional law on their side -- and it's unclear whether this is one of those times or not.

1 Reply

Like JPB mentioned, Grant Park was very electric.

I was not fortunate enough to get a ticket to the main event (I was stuck at the 'other' park). It wasn't nearly as exciting as what they showed on TV, but still an event.

I left the event once I decided Obama would win (pretty much after they called Florida/Ohio) and I made it home just in time to see McCain's speech, and subsequently Obama's. If I had any chance of seeing him speak live I would have stayed w/o question.

I am not an ardent Obama supporter, but I am hopeful that he will lead our country to greater things. His speech was moving (as was McCain's) and I even teared up. I really hope that both sides of our country can come together (and make no mistake, there is work to do on BOTH sides, it's not just Republicans who need to change to make this work).

And please, I hope I don't hear anyone calling this a mandate, despite the electoral votes won, 47% of the voters didn't vote for Obama. I remember when Bush called a similar majority a mandate and how stupid it seemed (and was, given how little his madate did). I hope people here don't make the same mistake.

Here's to hope! I am proud of my country.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Not meaning to argue, but Bush beat Kerry 286 to 252. In contrast, Obama won 349 to 163 and flipped 8, count'em, 8 red states (and maybe a ninth, NC is a tie). That's decisive if not a mandate. But yeah, not the kind of mandate that Bush thought he had. Maybe "decisive" is a better word. I'm glad it was such a clear victory. We don't have to waste time questioning who really won or what went wrong at the polls. It's a clear victory and he won with a clear majority (52 to 46 as of now) that has not been seen in some time.

But again, I'm not trying to argue with you maporsche. I respect where you're coming from and agree that the change we are looking for requires both parties to cut the bullshit.

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

I noted the newscasters were unwilling to predict the election outcome based on any exit polls (golly, the got some sense knocked into them!), and I haven't seen any headlines yet using "Landslide" or "Mandate" to describe the win but haven't thoroughly checked. There is news that Sarah Palin my enter national politics or become a host on a cable political pundit show. I think she should consider being the spokesperson for Lenscrafters.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

It won't stand in the new USSC which Obama is going to mold (watch the three judges about to retire doing it swiftly). The Texas decision and the unconstitutionality of any state laws or amendments banning gay marriage haven't a chance in this new environment. It's only a matter of time and the religious despots with God complexes are going to get a huge plate of smelly, bad tasting crow served up to them within the next four years.

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Decisive is a good word to use here. There is no question that Obama won (thank god!).

I heard "mandate" on MSNBC last night several times.....I hope they cut that bullshit out quick.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

I'll leave it for another thread to pursue this question. As far as this thread is concerned, let's just agree to disagree.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

RagMan: Obama between 300-330
Nimh: Obama - 311; McCain - 227
Dyslexia: Obama - 311; McCain - 227
Ehbeth: Obama - 317; McCain - 221
Cyclop: Obama - 320; McCain - 218
JoeFromChicago: Obama - 326; McCain - 212
Fbaezer: Obama - 338; McCain - 200
Jespah: Obama - 342; McCain - 196
Diest TKO: Obama - 348; McCain - 190
Debra Law: Obama - 350; McCain - 188
Sozobe: Obama - 353; McCain - 185
Parados: Obama - 356; McCain - 182
Occom Bill: Obama - 364; McCain - 174
RealJohnBoy: Obama - 367; McCain - 171
Engineer: Obama - 390; McCain - 148
Kuvase: Obama - 393; McCain - 145
CalamityJane: Obama - 398; McCain - 140
ebrown p: Obama - 406, McCain - 132

0 Replies

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Thanks guys!

OK, messing with that I first came up with the same one -- 353-185 -- then 364 -174, which is the same as O'Bill's pick.

Looks like that may be it (364 - 174, if Obama takes NC and McCain takes Missouri). (Going by CNN's map here:)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/

Hey FreeDuck, there's gonna be a runoff in GA -- Chambliss' days may yet be numbered!:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/georgia-senate-race-headed-for-runoff.html

1 Reply

@maporsche,

I like decisive victory -- mandates are something California is apparently against. (Wink)

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

It won't stand in the new USSC which Obama is going to mold (watch the three judges about to retire doing it swiftly). The Texas decision and the unconstitutionality of any state laws or amendments banning gay marriage haven't a chance in this new environment. It's only a matter of time and the religious despots with God complexes are going to get a huge plate of smelly, bad tasting crow served up to them within the next four years.

I wonder which three you think those would be? As far as I can tell, the Conservatives on the court are relatively young, with the exception of Scalia. If anyone is going to retire, it'll be the more moderate voices...

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

They will be replaced with even more liberal judges. They would not retire and hung on until Dubya was banished from the White House for fear he would try to get more very conservative judges on the bench.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If anyone is going to retire, it'll be the more moderate voices...

Lightwizard wrote:

They will be replaced with even more liberal judges.

Cycloptichorn can speak for himself, but as I understand his point, that would only make the dissents on the court more liberal. It wouldn't change the majority opinions in those famous 5-4 decisions, which would continue to be conservative.

Nothing short of expanding the court's membership will bring about the liberal decisions Lightwizard wants. And I doubt Obama would do that.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

or could.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Or could.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

The Republicans didn't seem to make the Supreme Court an issue in the campaign. I wonder why not. I did get one robo call about it. I didn't see much discussion of it on A2K either, but I didn't follow every thread.
If I have done my math right:
Roberts 53
Stevens 88
Alito 57
Scalia 72
Kennedy 72
Souter 69
Thomas 60
Ginsburg 75
Breyer 70

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
If anyone is going to retire, it'll be the more moderate voices...

Lightwizard wrote:
They will be replaced with even more liberal judges.

Cycloptichorn can speak for himself, but as I understand his point, that would only make the dissents on the court more liberal. It wouldn't change the majority opinions in those famous 5-4 decisions, which would continue to be conservative.

Nothing short of expanding the court's membership will bring about the liberal decisions Lightwizard wants. And I doubt Obama would do that.

Correct. And based on rjb's table, it seems that Roberts - Alito - Thomas aren't going anywhere soon, only Scalia looks likely to leave in Obama's term. Still, that would be big if it happened.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Join Us Here Tuesday Night!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know