Prop 8 Protest Information Thread

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

If the courts come up with a decision that the religious "right" doesn't like, they automatically throw around the phrase "legislating from the bench".

And the left would do the exact same thing if the courts did something they didn't like.

[Betty]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

And the left would do the exact same thing if the courts did something they didn't like.

OH stop trying to be the voice of reason!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

And the left would do the exact same thing if the courts did something they didn't like.

I keep trying to come up with a comparable situation and keep failing.

Of course, if the courts decided to restrict rights instead of allowing them, I'd be pissed off, and people that were fans of such a thing would be happy. But I think that's kind of the point...

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

And the left would do the exact same thing if the courts did something they didn't like.

I don't deny the fact that there are actual instances of judges legislating from the bench. I can't deny that the left doesn't use the phrase too. But since Bush, McCain etc started flying that term around in regards to marriage equality, a lot of conservatives have been using it in lockstep. It's a blanket, catch-all phrase that has been used to discount court findings that say, hey they do deserve the same treatment. When several courts in different states are deciding the same thing, shouldn't that mean something? No, let's just label their findings as that, it's easier to dismiss that way. When a group is sleeping in the same bed with these rigid churches and religious organizations then decides to discount the courts, I find that dangerous.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I don't deny the fact that there are actual instances of judges legislating from the bench.

With all due respect, Mr. Cricket, you are incorrect. There's no such thing as legislating from the bench. No judge has ever passed a law. Judges interpret the law and even the most evil and depraved rulings are but twisted interpretations of the law.

Some may find those interpretations so twisted they are contrary to the actual law (in their opinion), but they are not new law. Judge's set precedent. It is not law. I admit that may be confusing to the layman.

So please consider yourself informed.



Name me an instance of judge's legislating from the bench. That's a challenge open to Kevy, Cricket, and everyone.


Sorry, but the term makes me ill, it's for retards, and I'm sick of it.


It's so disrespectful of the brilliance of our admittedly imperfect system. Not all justice is really that ... too far from it, I'm afraid. But try to imagine where we'd be without our structure for impartial justice. OMG, how much more fuct our lives would all be.

We certainly wouldn't have been fighting to preserve our marriage rights. We wouldn't have had them.




Sigh. My apologies for the rant. Pet.Peeve.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Name me an instance of judge's legislating from the bench. That's a challenge open to Kevy, Cricket, and everyone.

This is a silly challenge. You make a statement about the legal terminology that you are better informed than Cricket or I (and most of the people on LoT).

My statement was a simple observation in response to GC's post:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

If the courts come up with a decision that the religious "right" doesn't like, they automatically throw around the phrase "legislating from the bench".

And my response was not in regards to the specific wording but a comment that neither the right or the left is immune to a critical response if a decision doesn't go the way they want it.