Letter: Judge oversteps his bounds

Letter: Judge oversteps his bounds

There are 78 comments on the Chico Enterprise-Record story from Aug 10, 2010, titled Letter: Judge oversteps his bounds. In it, Chico Enterprise-Record reports that:

In a living and breathing democracy, "We the People" are the one and only source of power, as enshrined in the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chico Enterprise-Record.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Observer

Chico, CA

#1 Aug 10, 2010
You answered your own question.

"We the People" established the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land. A law cannot be enacted that violates the Constitution. The judge in question found that Proposition 8 did, in fact, violate the Constitution and was therefore invalid. He wrote a hundred and thirty six page explanation of his reasoning which is available for you to read if you so choose.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#2 Aug 10, 2010
Observer wrote:
You answered your own question.
"We the People" established the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land. A law cannot be enacted that violates the Constitution. The judge in question found that Proposition 8 did, in fact, violate the Constitution and was therefore invalid. He wrote a hundred and thirty six page explanation of his reasoning which is available for you to read if you so choose.
I would like you to tell me why a gay judge did not recuse himself from this case since he has a conflict of interest in the outcome of his decision.
TSQ

Los Angeles, CA

#3 Aug 10, 2010
Great points, Observer. It is a shame that Mr. Frongia does not understand how the American system works. I wonder if Mr. Frongia thinks Brown v. Board of Education was a similar attempt to "disempower" or "overpower" democratic majorities which thought that "separate but equal" was just fine (he might be right in thinking that but wrong in believing that it was an unconstitutional action taken by the High Court). Maybe he can write a follow up letter explaining his understanding of this case and why our third branch of government had no business ruling as it did back in 1954. That would be interesting reading indeed. Keep up the good work, O.
TSQ

Los Angeles, CA

#4 Aug 10, 2010
RB Gerber wrote:
<quoted text>I would like you to tell me why a gay judge did not recuse himself from this case since he has a conflict of interest in the outcome of his decision.
Should Catholic judges similarly recuse themselves when ruling on abortion or other issues of morality (like gay marriage) because they, too, have conflicts of interest in these cases?(Maybe the six Catholics on the Supreme Court should all recuse themselves when the gay marriage case comes before them because of their "conflicts of interest?") Do you think black and white and Asian-American judges should recuse themselves when black and white and Asian-Americans (respectively) come before them because they, too, have a conflict of interest in these cases? Where would your logic end?
Bogie

Chico, CA

#5 Aug 10, 2010
RB Gerber wrote:
<quoted text>I would like you to tell me why a gay judge did not recuse himself from this case since he has a conflict of interest in the outcome of his decision.
Who said he was gay? Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity?
Observer

Chico, CA

#6 Aug 10, 2010
It is interesting that, when President Reagan first tried to appoint Judge Walker to the Federal Court, the Gay activists raised enough of a fuss to block the nomination. Later, President George H. W. Bush was successful in appointing him to the Court. Politically, Judge Walker seems to be a Libertarian-Conservative and is noted for a keen appreciation of and respect for established law and a total disregard for political expediency.
Observer

Chico, CA

#7 Aug 10, 2010
TSQ wrote:
I wonder if Mr. Frongia thinks Brown v. Board of Education was a similar attempt to "disempower" or "overpower" democratic majorities which thought that "separate but equal" was just fine...
Sometimes the Courts find themselves constrained by political reality. The Civil War era Constitutional Amendments enshrined racial equality into law. But (white) people nonetheless refused to accept the idea. When the Supreme Court, in the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision of 1896, laid down the "separate but equal" doctrine, it was a half-step in the right direction, but a radical decision for that time and politically as far as they could go. It wasn't until 1954, in Brown vs. Board of Education that the court was able to go the rest of the way and ban segregation forever. But, were it left to "democratic majorities," Blacks and other racial minorities would still be relegated to second class citizenship (actually, in many places and many ways, they still are...).

I was growing up when Brown vs. Board of Education was handed down. There was a lot more prejudice then than there is now. But prejudice in this country did not spring up overnight. It took centuries. And it is not going to go away over night. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that we will be able to raise the next generation to be less prejudiced than we are.
Horlus

Oregon House, CA

#8 Aug 10, 2010
Observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes the Courts find themselves constrained by political reality. The Civil War era Constitutional Amendments enshrined racial equality into law. But (white) people nonetheless refused to accept the idea. When the Supreme Court, in the Plessy vs. Ferguson decision of 1896, laid down the "separate but equal" doctrine, it was a half-step in the right direction, but a radical decision for that time and politically as far as they could go. It wasn't until 1954, in Brown vs. Board of Education that the court was able to go the rest of the way and ban segregation forever. But, were it left to "democratic majorities," Blacks and other racial minorities would still be relegated to second class citizenship (actually, in many places and many ways, they still are...).
I was growing up when Brown vs. Board of Education was handed down. There was a lot more prejudice then than there is now. But prejudice in this country did not spring up overnight. It took centuries. And it is not going to go away over night. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that we will be able to raise the next generation to be less prejudiced than we are.
it was football that did it
Don

AOL

#9 Aug 10, 2010
HEy, Eugie, the answer is simple, The Constitution gives the judge that power. The will of the people one time disallowed women the right to vote and men the freedom from conviction of raping their wives. The will of the people allowed inequality of races until 1064- almost two hundred years. The will of the people declared the world to be flat. Time to move into the new century.
God

Chico, CA

#10 Aug 10, 2010
RB Gerber wrote:
<quoted text>I would like you to tell me why a gay judge did not recuse himself from this case since he has a conflict of interest in the outcome of his decision.
No more than a non-gay judge would have a conflict of interest also!
Can't you children all just get along and quit bashing each other?
Disorderly Event

United States

#11 Aug 10, 2010
This letter writer must be a pretty bitter and unhappy person if he spends his time complaining about how our judges aren't bigots like he is.
Democracy

United States

#12 Aug 10, 2010
In some letters this week conservatives are outraged at gun control and feel some don't have the right to vote on or decide the rights of others.

Then here they are in this forum claiming that Prop 8 is the voters will. Well, if there was a proposition banning guns that was approved by voters, would Mr. Frongia agree to live by that happily because it was the will of the people?
Democracy

United States

#13 Aug 10, 2010
RB Gerber wrote:
<quoted text>I would like you to tell me why a gay judge did not recuse himself from this case since he has a conflict of interest in the outcome of his decision.
Why wouldn't a straight judge have to recuse himself since he would also have a conflict of interest?
Max

Chico, CA

#14 Aug 10, 2010
Democracy wrote:
In some letters this week conservatives are outraged at gun control and feel some don't have the right to vote on or decide the rights of others.
Then here they are in this forum claiming that Prop 8 is the voters will. Well, if there was a proposition banning guns that was approved by voters, would Mr. Frongia agree to live by that happily because it was the will of the people?
You said it.

It's tempting to pounce on Mr. Frongia for his inadequate understanding of our constitutional democracy that protects minority rights regardless of the expressed will of the majority, but let's be kind. Most of us just want our government to do the things we want it to do. When our will is thwarted, we look for reasons to blame the government. In a presidential election if our choice wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college vote, we rail against the ridiculous electoral college that defies the popular will of the people and gives disproportionate influence to small state voters relative to voters of more populous states. But, when our choice for president loses the popular vote but wins the electoral college vote, we celebrate the wisdom of the Constitution's framers who had the foresight to know that sometimes the better choice for president loses the popular vote.

Still, one should note for Frongia's benefit that our judges are sworn to follow the law, not popular opinion. Our Constitution really wouldn't mean much if any provision in it were waived to serve prevailing popular opinion.
Find the truth

Cinebar, WA

#15 Aug 10, 2010
Sorry Eugenio, but if we had local majority rules everywhere there would still be slavery in some place and some type of discrimination everywhere.
welfare mart

Granite Bay, CA

#16 Aug 10, 2010
Max wrote:
<quoted text>
Our Constitution really wouldn't mean much if any provision in it were waived to serve prevailing popular opinion.
A man once said "a house divided against itself cannot stand" seems to me the case here .

Democracy has been replaced with democrazy whether you like it or not .
DaleInGlennCount y

San Jose, CA

#17 Aug 10, 2010
Bogie wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said he was gay? Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity?
The local and national news reported him as an openly gay judge.
Joe Sixpack

Paradise, CA

#18 Aug 10, 2010
The 14th Amendment guarantees due process and equal protection, no exceptions. That's why Prop. 8 is unconstitutional. California at one time outlawed interracial marriage. That was thrown out on the same grounds.
Find the truth

Cinebar, WA

#19 Aug 10, 2010
RB Gerber wrote:
<quoted text>I would like you to tell me why a gay judge did not recuse himself from this case since he has a conflict of interest in the outcome of his decision.
Well, RB Gerber, following your logic it would be impossible to find an unbiased judge. What makes you think that a "straight" judge wouldn't have a conflict of interest? Seems to me the potential for bias would be greater.
welfare mart

Granite Bay, CA

#20 Aug 10, 2010
Find the truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, RB Gerber, following your logic it would be impossible to find an unbiased judge. What makes you think that a "straight" judge wouldn't have a conflict of interest? Seems to me the potential for bias would be greater.
If you believe in an unbiased arbiter , then you yourself are biased . It's a quandary , for everything one does is for selfish reasons

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chico Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 2 hr rabbee yehoshooah... 72,039
Women In Combat 3 hr Sad Sack 2
Trump Wins First Debate 4 hr Canuck 15
Hillary Clinton Supports County's That Murder Gays 14 hr Middle of the road 1
Lying Cheating C*nt Hillary Caught At Debate 15 hr ANONYMOUS 1
Buffoon Mulholland Thinks C*nt-one won Debate 17 hr ANONYMOUS 6
hrh top ten Mon Top Ten 1

Chico Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chico Mortgages