Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 51051

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.

ConservativeChristian, Topix 51 Comments [11/2/2008 2:44:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Jax
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
dpareja

"They should've respected the will of the people, the majority that wanted interracial marriage illegal..."

[citation needed]

11/2/2008 2:49:15 AM

Thejebusfire

[Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage so judges shouldn't be overturning laws against it. ]

[They should've respected the will of the people, the majority that wanted interracial marriage illegal ]

Citation that wasn't pulled out of your asshole please?

11/2/2008 2:52:58 AM

SapphireWolf

Actually the majority of people(72%) did oppose interracial marriage when the supreme court ruled in favor of Loving.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll5.htm

it's under "a bit of perspective"

11/2/2008 2:58:15 AM

Bar_One

Activist judges legislating from the bench? You don't even know how your own government works. It's called checks & balances. The court decides if a law is constitutional. That's the court's job! You're a super patriot that knows less about your government than a 4th grader.

11/2/2008 3:01:54 AM

Old Viking

Activist judge: One who renders a decision that disagrees with my bigoted beliefs.

11/2/2008 3:04:07 AM

Mudak

Read about a ruling called Marbury v. Madison. In that ruling, the Supreme Court first declared a congressional law unconstitutional.

It's noteworthy that the Rehnquist Court, a relatively conservative one, ruled more laws unconstitutional than any other.

11/2/2008 3:04:34 AM

Jay-Sus

You forget that your country was founded on equality and freedom.

11/2/2008 3:07:32 AM

Yaezakura

The will of the majority is allowed to be usurped when the majority request something bigoted and hateful. That is, in fact, one of the single most important things about the USA. That the minorities are protected from the persecution of the majorities.

If the majority suddenly rose up and said "we don't want black people here" or "we don't want Hispanic people here", it would be stupid to listen to them and give them what they want. Simply because they're in the majority does not make them RIGHT.

It is a judge's responsibility to interpret the law, and that includes the constitution. Considering the US constitution (and most if not all state constitutions) include equal-opportunity and anti-discrimination clauses, judges who are doing their duty with an unbiased mind can make no other valid judgment that those which provide rights to all people equally, regardless of what the majority of citizens say on the matter.

11/2/2008 3:08:39 AM

Barikada

So wait a minute, you oppose the Supreme Court doing /exactly what it's supposed to do/?

I'm Canadian and I know more about your system than you!

11/2/2008 3:11:55 AM



racism ftw

11/2/2008 3:22:05 AM

dg

Well, the Supreme Court IS supposed to decide based on the Constitution, not their own beliefs, which they have a quite poor record of doing... but it's supposed to be based on THE CONSTITUTION, not "the beliefs of this nation's Christian majority." The majority elects Congress and (except sometimes) the president; isn't that enough?

11/2/2008 3:24:56 AM

Detrs

That's what judges are for. What do you think they should do? Just make polite suggestions? Yeah, that'll protect minorities.

11/2/2008 3:36:06 AM

AuraTwilight

The majority of the people aren't allowed to get their way if what they want is immoral, illegal, and inhumane.

11/2/2008 3:39:15 AM

History Teacher

All of my high school American Government students could explain to dumb ass here that a key principle of our republic is the protection of minority rights within majority rule.

11/2/2008 3:40:13 AM

anonymous

"Americans overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage"

I overwhelmingly oppose stupid people, but you have the right to be stupid, so you don't see me complaining.

11/2/2008 3:52:07 AM

Mortok

Please exit the gene pool immediatly.

11/2/2008 3:53:31 AM

Kelly

Yes because giving into the will of the majority is always a good idea.

11/2/2008 4:09:45 AM

Horsefeathers

"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."

They shouldn't be making laws against it either.

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

Excuse me? You seem to have mistaken our governmental system for some sort of theocracy. The U.S. doesn't quite work like that. You seem to have mistaken our governmental system for some sort of theocracy.

"I'm consistent about this. That even goes for positions I disagree with. I support allowing interracial couples to get married."

I'm sure you think this makes you seem tolerant. It makes you sound like a fucking moron but I doubt you realize it.

"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."

The Supreme Court is appointed in order to rule on the interpretation of law. Taking that away from them makes them seem rather pointless, wouldn't you agree?

"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."

You're really not getting this, are you?

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

Unless they're on the Supreme Court. Then it's kind of in the job description you twit.

11/2/2008 4:11:30 AM

Saika

"Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep debating over what to eat for dinner."

11/2/2008 4:41:06 AM

WMDKitty

Anti-gay-marriage laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as they DENY BASIC HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS TO LGBT PEOPLE.

(As much as I hate CapsLock, I felt the need to shout here.)

11/2/2008 4:41:36 AM

Bill O'Rly

Uhh what the fuck is the point of judges if all they do is vote whatever the people want?

11/2/2008 4:55:28 AM

Professor M

Let's put it this way, "CC" --

You can get:

a) heterosexuals-only civil marriage
XOR
b) the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution.

That you have both now is a sign of
c) unequal application of ethical principles and a national judiciary biased in favor of your hypocrisy.


11/2/2008 4:58:26 AM

Osiris

Democracy is majority rules but minority rights.

11/2/2008 5:06:03 AM

Zastava

What happens when the majority doesn't want Morality Laws, but Christan Conservative Judges impose them anyway?

11/2/2008 5:23:11 AM

Panz

"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."
So that means you fuckwits will stop trying to overturn other judgements like Roe vs Wade? Yeah, i thought not, fuckin' hypocrites

11/2/2008 6:19:57 AM
1 2 3