The Will of the People Must Be Respected! Say NO to Activist Judges

Posted in the Christian Forum

Comments
1 - 13 of 13 Comments Last updated Nov 3, 2008
ConservativeChri stian

Owosso, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 27, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Activist judges have overturned the will of the people too many times. Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage so judges shouldn't be overturning laws against it.

Judges should respect the beliefs of this nation's Christian majority.

I'm consistent about this. That even goes for positions I disagree with. I support allowing interracial couples to get married. However, I recognize that in our country the people rule so it was wrong for the Supreme Court to overrule the people in Loving v. Virginia. They should've respected the will of the people, the majority that wanted interracial marriage illegal instead of legislating from the bench. The right way to get interracial marriage legalized was to change opinions and over time as opinions have changed so interracial marriage would still be legal today.

Just say no to activist judges legislating from the bench. They have no right to do that no matter what.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Oct 27, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ConservativeChristian wrote:
Activist judges have overturned the will of the people too many times. Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage so judges shouldn't be overturning laws against it.
Judges should respect the beliefs of this nation's Christian majority.
I'm consistent about this. That even goes for positions I disagree with. I support allowing interracial couples to get married. However, I recognize that in our country the people rule so it was wrong for the Supreme Court to overrule the people in Loving v. Virginia. They should've respected the will of the people, the majority that wanted interracial marriage illegal instead of legislating from the bench. The right way to get interracial marriage legalized was to change opinions and over time as opinions have changed so interracial marriage would still be legal today.
Just say no to activist judges legislating from the bench. They have no right to do that no matter what.
So tyranny of the majority is what you support? In other words, if muslims were to become the majority population in the USA you would support sharia as law? If the majority supported legal slavery of all non-white people you would support that?
Bud

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 27, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ConservativeChristian wrote:
Activist judges have overturned the will of the people too many times. Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage so judges shouldn't be overturning laws against it.
Judges should respect the beliefs of this nation's Christian majority.
I'm consistent about this. That even goes for positions I disagree with. I support allowing interracial couples to get married. However, I recognize that in our country the people rule so it was wrong for the Supreme Court to overrule the people in Loving v. Virginia. They should've respected the will of the people, the majority that wanted interracial marriage illegal instead of legislating from the bench. The right way to get interracial marriage legalized was to change opinions and over time as opinions have changed so interracial marriage would still be legal today.
Just say no to activist judges legislating from the bench. They have no right to do that no matter what.
Which activist judges? The right-wing conservative ones, or the left-wing liberal ones?

Somehow I think you will be against one, but not the other.

Also, I guess you missed civics class, but certain fundamental rights and those guaranteed by the Constitution are not subject to majority whim.

Judges do not engage in popularity contests. They apply the law without regard to what the majority wants. That's what a fair legal system does - but you don't want that, now do you?

As for Loving, under what authority can you say it was wrongly decided? Having decided* that marriage is a fundamental right, they found that the race restrictions violated due process and equal protection.

Those provisions of the Constitution are not subject to majority rule...otherwise, there would be no reason to HAVE a Constitution in the first place?

Did you miss high school civics or something?

*Despite Kerdy's falsehoods to the contrary, the law is clear on this point.
zazugrey

Oceanside, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 2, 2008
 
ConservativeChristian wrote:
Activist judges have overturned the will of the people too many times. Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage so judges shouldn't be overturning laws against it.
Judges should respect the beliefs of this nation's Christian majority.
I'm consistent about this. That even goes for positions I disagree with. I support allowing interracial couples to get married. However, I recognize that in our country the people rule so it was wrong for the Supreme Court to overrule the people in Loving v. Virginia. They should've respected the will of the people, the majority that wanted interracial marriage illegal instead of legislating from the bench. The right way to get interracial marriage legalized was to change opinions and over time as opinions have changed so interracial marriage would still be legal today.
Just say no to activist judges legislating from the bench. They have no right to do that no matter what.
May I direct your attention to Federalist No. 10? Interpreting the Constitution in a way which goes against the will of the majority is not the same as legislating from the bench. I know this has already been pointed out, but this can't be restated enough. The will of the majority is not always just, legal, or constitutional. By your logic, if a majority of Americans decide that white people shouldn't be allowed to marry each other, the judges should "respect the will of the people." It doesn't take a genius to see the flaws in your argument. Here's a link to Federalist No. 10:
http://federali.st/10
Light Sensitive

New Rochelle, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 2, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

ConservativeChristian wrote:
Activist judges have overturned the will of the people too many times. Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage so judges shouldn't be overturning laws against it.
Judges should respect the beliefs of this nation's Christian majority.
I'm consistent about this. That even goes for positions I disagree with. I support allowing interracial couples to get married. However, I recognize that in our country the people rule so it was wrong for the Supreme Court to overrule the people in Loving v. Virginia. They should've respected the will of the people, the majority that wanted interracial marriage illegal instead of legislating from the bench. The right way to get interracial marriage legalized was to change opinions and over time as opinions have changed so interracial marriage would still be legal today.
Just say no to activist judges legislating from the bench. They have no right to do that no matter what.
uh, you need to go back to school. we're not a true democracy, but a republic. if the majority actually ruled we'd be in a world of hurt.

there is so much wrong, factualy and theoretically, in your post its numbing.

the judicial branch is not suppoesd to respond to the "majority" (whatever that means)...rather do what is best for the country and protect the minority from the lynch-mob mentality of the majority, esp. christians.(we can see how well the christian desire to outlaw alcohol worked out.)

and the wishes of the christians shouldnt in our society take precedence over all. the bible is not the template for our legal system.

you are proof-positive that most americans need to go backto school and revisit good old social studies.and hopefully not taught by some racist like it appears you were...
ConservativeChri stian

Owosso, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 2, 2008
 
zazugrey wrote:
<quoted text>
May I direct your attention to Federalist No. 10? Interpreting the Constitution in a way which goes against the will of the majority is not the same as legislating from the bench. I know this has already been pointed out, but this can't be restated enough. The will of the majority is not always just, legal, or constitutional. By your logic, if a majority of Americans decide that white people shouldn't be allowed to marry each other, the judges should "respect the will of the people." It doesn't take a genius to see the flaws in your argument. Here's a link to Federalist No. 10:
http://federali.st/10
Yes I know. If something really is unconstitutional it should be ruled that way.

But for the Supreme Court to rule that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional would be legislating from the bench. The 14th amendment gives people equal protection of the laws, but they already have equal rights. Everyone is allowed to get married as long as they marry the opposite sex.

Same goes for Loving. Everyone had the right to get married as long as it was the same race. The Supreme Court was legislating from the bench and using legalese to make it sound like they were just applying the 14th amendment, just as I'm sure they would do if they ruled laws against gay marriage unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has overruled the will of the people as expressed through the laws passed by their representatives in the past in cases like Roe v Wade, Loving v Virginia, and Lawrence v Texas. They better not overrule this in the future for gay marriage.

Lastly I'd like to make myself clear again. I am not a racist and I do support having interracial marriage legal. It's just that just like there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits laws against gay marriage there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits laws against interracial marriage. In fact the same can be said of Brown v Board. There was no violation of the equal protection clause, because everyone had the same right to go to school as long as it was their own school. If white people were being allowed to attend black schools, but black people weren't allowed in the white schools that would be unconstitutional, but that wasn't the case. Do I agree that segregation was wrong and that it should've been abolished? Yes, but the states would've come around to that by now. Either that or the rest of America would've passed a constitutional amendment. The right way to change bad laws that are constitutional is not for the Supreme Court to pretend they're unconstitutional it's to get the laws changed.

Some of you might take from this that I support gay marriage but don't want the Supreme Court to rule it legal. Not true. Gay marriage undermines our nation's moral fiber. Interracial marriage and integration do not but still aren't protected in the constitution which is why I think those cases were wrongly decided.
Wayne

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 2, 2008
 
Marriage is not a right. The gays WANT to change that though. They will though because it is prophesied. The liberal fools are playing right into the prophesies prediction because they are too blind to see it. The Lord will be returning soon.

Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
ConservativeChri stian

Owosso, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 2, 2008
 
Kudos, Wayne.

The word "marriage" is not in the constitution therefore it is not a protected right and the equal protection clause does not apply for "see my reasoning above".

The Supreme Court should never without an amendment make any rulings about who is allowed to marry who that's the prerogative of the states and I don't care if a state is trying to stop red heads from marrying blonds its still the prerogative of the states or at least it is for now. I hope that anti-gay marriage amendment gets passed then the only rulings the Supreme Court should ever do on marriage should be to say that gay marriage is unconstitutional if any jurisdiction tries to ignore the amendment.
Bud

Tallahassee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 3, 2008
 
Wayne wrote:
Marriage is not a right. The gays WANT to change that though. They will though because it is prophesied. The liberal fools are playing right into the prophesies prediction because they are too blind to see it. The Lord will be returning soon.
Luke 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
Loving v. Virginia, 1967 "marriage is a fundamental right."

You people are just plain silly.

“Fundie SMACKER..”

Since: Mar 08

Sunshine city, St Petersburg

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 3, 2008
 
ConservativeChristian wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I know. If something really is unconstitutional it should be ruled that way.
Then everything you printed after this sentence is mute eh? you said so yourself!
Wayne

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 3, 2008
 
Bud wrote:
<quoted text>
Loving v. Virginia, 1967 "marriage is a fundamental right."
You people are just plain silly.
Didn't think you liked fundamentals?
AnnDee

Temecula, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 3, 2008
 
FAST, PASS AND PRAY!!!!!!!!
Please join us for a day of FASTING AND PRAYER the day before the most important election of our lifetime. So much is at stake including the Right to Life, Christian Liberty, Supreme Court Judge Appointments and National Security.
Why is it important for us to fast and pray? In the Bible, when God's people have faced a major turning point in their nation, they have fasted and prayed. Esther asked Mordecai and the Jewish people to pray for her in Esther 4:16, before she petitioned the king for her people. Daniel prayed, fasted, confessed and petitioned to the Lord in Daniel 9:4,5 "O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with all who love him and obey his commands, we have sinned and done wrong. We have been wicked and rebelled; we have turned away from your commands and laws."
Most importantly, Jesus set an example of fasting and prayer for us to follow in Matthew 4 when he fasted forty days. As we set aside our time in prayer and fasting, let's remember that we walk by faith and not by sight. Without faith it's impossible to please God. While the world is watching the election polls, let's keep our eyes on the Lord and be found faithful in prayer.
God Bless You!
ConcernedChristi an

Ogden, UT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 3, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

ConservativeChristian wrote:
Kudos, Wayne.
The word "marriage" is not in the constitution therefore it is not a protected right and the equal protection clause does not apply for "see my reasoning above".
The Supreme Court should never without an amendment make any rulings about who is allowed to marry who that's the prerogative of the states and I don't care if a state is trying to stop red heads from marrying blonds its still the prerogative of the states or at least it is for now. I hope that anti-gay marriage amendment gets passed then the only rulings the Supreme Court should ever do on marriage should be to say that gay marriage is unconstitutional if any jurisdiction tries to ignore the amendment.
Please, please read the Constitution. Pay particular attention to the 9th Amendment and the 14th Amendment. The first clause of the 14th Amendment states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The 9th Amendment states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." States DO NOT have the right to deny anyone's rights. The Supreme Court was created to protect the rights of the people, to make sure that the federal and state governments do not trod on the citizens. Everyone knows that our representatives, be they federal or state, do not always enact laws according to what the majority of the people want. They do not always enact laws that are for the common good. Your logic regarding appropriateness of the Court's rulings in Loving, Brown and other decisions is very misguided. You seem to be advocating the denial of rights that I'm sure you enjoy to others just because they aren't like you, don't believe the same as you or don't agree with you.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Virgin Mary - Mother of god 58 min dollarsbilll 17
Time is Coming! Are you ready for it? 1 hr hell chucks 7
Recovery, what recovery? 1 hr buck fible juck f... 58
intelligent debate 1 hr par five 28
Hamas executes 11 more Palestinians suspected o... 1 hr Fully Aware G0Y 26
Take America Back 2 hr NorCal Native 982
How = CAN = YOU = BE = SAVED = BY = GRACE? (Apr '13) 2 hr PASTOR BILL 123
Michael Brown was a Christian??? 2 hr dollarsbill 214
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 2 hr janeebee 13,648
Scripture cancels Rapture lottery 3 hr dollarsbill 48
Are World Events Pointing to End Times 5 hr dollarsbill 374
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Christian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••