The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: BannedFromDU on May 26, 2009, 12:25:10 PM
-
Hugabear (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue May-26-09 10:21 AM
Original message
Why the **** do we even have a court system if not to serve as a check & balance?
Seriously, WHAT THE ****?
I don't give a shit about "voter-approved" this or that. **** THAT. Sorry, but there is a very good reason our Founding Fathers did not institute a system of pure democracy, aka mob rule. If we were to rely primarily on the "will of the people", then slavery would still exist in the Confederate States of America - which would still exist, as many people opposed going to war to preserve the union. Hell, the US would have never come into existence, since most people opposed going to war with Britain in the first place.
The courts are supposed to serve as a check & balance against this sort of thing. In this case, the court has completely and utterly failed its purpose!
You mean you want 7 people to decide everything? (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5722422)
Yeah, yeah. You homos shoulda married when you had the chance.
-
What, the courts don't exist to overturn the will of the people?
-
Hugabear (1000+ posts)
Tue May-26-09 10:21 AM
I don't give a shit about "voter-approved" this or that. **** THAT. Sorry, but there is a very good reason our Founding Fathers did not institute a system of pure democracy, aka mob rule.
Oh, now you agree with that?
-
ody (1000+ posts) Tue May-26-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. Agree, IMO this is a fundamental question re whether inalienable rights exist to protect a minority
against the tyranny of a simple majority.
IMO Jerry Brown was correct in arguing that CA's constitution protected same-sex marriage by its declaration "SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."
Either all inalienable rights are protected or none are protected.
What about my right to live in a society that does not validate sexual deviancy? What about my inalienable right to live in a society which recognizes normality and shuns the ridiculous?
Every time someone gains a "right" someone else loses a "right". I don't know why it must be assumed only the homosex crowd has a lock on the "rights" claim. Normal moral people have rights too.