Judge issues order to block "anti-muslim" amendment

[Dave70968]

The thing is, we voted. 70% were against, now one person disagrees and overturns the votes of 70% of Oklahomans who voted? thats crap.

so much for our votes meaning ANYTHING

So if 70% of people were in favor of seizing your 401k, you'd be okay with that? Or if a majority of people were in favor of, say, nationalizing health care, that'd be cool?

So much for their votes meaning anything.



The entire point of having rules like the Bill of Rights is to remove some things from the control of voters--to hold them sacrosanct, so that even if the vote is 300,000,000-1, the one can still prevail. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

 

[Dave70968]

The judicial system is there to serve the people and to apply the law, not to judge the law. Interpreting the law is not judging. Thomas Jefferson was adamantly against this decision, as it empowered the courts to impose their will against the peoples. If you were paying attention, you will see the last line in that article-

"Because the Constitution lacks a clear statement authorizing the Federal courts to nullify the acts of coequal branches, critics contend that the argument for judicial review must rely on a significant gloss on the Constitution's terms. Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community."

The courts are not federally authorized to make these decision's they authorized themselves, via this original decision. Over time, it became accepted, though these actions, in and of themselves, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

When a court declares a law unconstitutional, it is resolving an apparent conflict of laws: a disparity between the law in question and the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law, and all else is subordinate; consequently, when a law is struck down as unconstitutional, the court is interpreting the Constitution and applying it to the conflict, and resolving the conflict in favor of the superior authority.

 

[JD8]

Really?

Name one country on the planet where multiculturalism has worked?

Without getting into the complexity of world history.... are you saying that there aren't several cultures present in the United States? Not to mention several that helped build this country? Unless you truly believe that we are/were of all the same race/ethnicity/religion?

 

[ez bake]

Okay, so if a muslim decides to kill some of your families, and say that under his faith, Allah told him to kill your family because you don't agree with Islam, he would then be protected by his mulsim laws here in Oklahoma. You'd be okay with that?

Or if your neighbor is repeatedly raping and abusing his wife, and tells the courts that the Quran permits it, you're really going to be okay with that?

I understand thats a little to the extreme, but if we permit it, we permit it all, not just the simple stuff.

The thing is, we voted. 70% were against, now one person disagrees and overturns the votes of 70% of Oklahomans who voted? thats crap.

so much for our votes meaning ANYTHING

This is a blatent misunderstanding of how the judicial system works. The only people promoting this line of thinking have no proof of any cases that have ever even made it close to proving this line of thought.

The State question looked like it was worded by these same types of folks who completely misunderstand the judicial system and it was honestly embarrassing to see the question in the way it was written out.

 

[Glocktogo]

By your reasoning we are not a republic but a democracy. A state where the majority rules in all instances. There is no higher power than the majority.

Or am I missing who that higher power is? Pray tell.

So if 70% of people were in favor of seizing your 401k, you'd be okay with that? Or if a majority of people were in favor of, say, nationalizing health care, that'd be cool?

So much for their votes meaning anything.

The entire point of having rules like the Bill of Rights is to remove some things from the control of voters--to hold them sacrosanct, so that even if the vote is 300,000,000-1, the one can still prevail. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

Well we're not a democracy, we're a democratic republic. There are certain things that are beyond the voters control. Unfortunately, there seems to be nothing beyond the control of judges. The checks and balances against rogue judges is inadequate. If judges from the bottom level all the way up to the SCOTUS agree that something is not legal, then it's not. Period. There's no effective way to overturn their decision. Even if you were to enact a Constitutiona Amendment (which is all but impossible now), the judges still get the rest of eternity to argue over what that amendment really means.

So what we have is an extremely small portion of the citizenry that do have an absolute democracy. Unfortunately, they rule us all. Take this judge for instance. He gets to nullify an entire election process that followed all legal requirements for a ballot initiative. Now we have to argue in court for years whether it's legal. In my opinion, he has exceeded the scope of his authority. He should have waited until the results were certified and the initiative was implemented to issue an injunction. Unfortunately, he gets to decide what the scope of his authority is. He has interfered with the voting rights of the public in this case.

 

[Michael Brown]

The concept you describe is fine and quite possibly something we all should aspire to.

Too bad man's nature is such that it never has worked and barring some devine being touching us all and changing our natures never will.

Diverse cultures clash - always - an even perusory study of history shows it - ancient and contemporary.

Sucks but that's just the way it is.

By your statement, it would be impossible for my family to exist.

They consist of many different, diverse cultures.

Only ignorant, xenophobic people cannot get along.

We have gotten along in this country for years when we appreciated what everyone brought to the table.

We only hit snags when the ignorant outnumber the contributors.

THAT may indeed be where we're heading and your statement would support that idea.

I believe a divine being HAS touched us all; Some have simply chosen to ignore it.

Michael Brown

 

[Dave70968]

So what we have is an extremely small portion of the citizenry that do have an absolute democracy. Unfortunately, they rule us all.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Take this judge for instance. He gets to nullify an entire election process that followed all legal requirements for a ballot initiative. Now we have to argue in court for years whether it's legal. In my opinion, he has exceeded the scope of his authority.

You have your opinion. Several people with actual legal education have weighed in with their opinions. Call me crazy, but I'm going to have to say that the people who know what they're talking about are the more credible ones here. Despite what the third-grade teachers say, not every opinion is equally valuable.

Or do you ask your plumber for his opinion on that broken bone?

 

[71buickfreak]

You still are not getting it. The court system does not have the constitutional authority to decide whether ot not a law is unconstitutional. period. The courts were never supposed to have that power, they assumed it for themselves, by legislating from the bench. The court's purpose is to interpret the laws, not challenge, judge or otherwise infringe upon them. Once passed, it is law. it would take an act of congress (US or state) to repeal, amend, or overrule it. There is currently no check or balance for the supreme court, which is why who gets on it is so damn important, because the supreme court shapes the laws of this country, and no one else. Once it goes to the SCOTUS, those 9 have the all the power in this country. From the SCOTUS website-

"When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken."

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[71buickfreak]

By the way, the United States of America is a republic, not true democracy. A democracy is a dictatorship of the majority, we don't have that. The minority always has their say, and often, in our republic, the minority wins over the majority.

 

[SoonerDVM]

You still are not getting it. The court system does not have the constitutional authority to decide whether ot not a law is unconstitutional.....

I think YOU'RE not getting it.

Whether it was intended that way originally or not, it has BEEN that way for a couple hundred years (207 years, if I have my dates correct). The precedent is so longstanding that no amount of stamping your foot and saying "But they can't DO that!!!" is going to make a bit of difference.