http://gamingtrend.com
August 28, 2014, 01:23:32 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Keith Olbermann is ANGRY (Prop 8)  (Read 6006 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #40 on: November 13, 2008, 06:54:09 PM »

Quote from: cheeba on November 12, 2008, 03:43:52 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on November 12, 2008, 12:26:06 PM

You think Bill O'Reilly has talent??!?!?!
He's a very talented troll. Do you disagree?

I think he's an untalented partisan hack with sexual issues.

I'm not a big fan of Olbermann either.  In this case, I think his message is spot-on, but I hate how he looks like he's about to bust into tears any time he gets excited.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
cheeba
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2046


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: November 13, 2008, 07:11:10 PM »

Ben Affleck did an excellent (no really) Olbermann. Video here.
Logged
Mr. Fed
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 985


View Profile WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 13, 2008, 07:24:50 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on November 13, 2008, 06:54:09 PM



I think he's an untalented partisan hack with sexual issues.

There's no call for that.  What a man and his falafel do in the privacy of their own home is none of our business.  So long as the falafel is of age.
Logged

Popehat, a blog.  Now 35% less ugly!
Jag
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2379



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: November 13, 2008, 08:49:45 PM »

The Florida Amendment was to ensure no 'activist judges' permit same sex marriages and repeat what happened in MA and CA.

The Florida amendment was also worded poorly, although a simple reading clarified it. Voting yes for the Marriage Protection Act sounded like you were voting FOR marriage.

It got something like 61% of the electorate voting for it. It needed 60% to pass.
Logged
Owain
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 317


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: November 13, 2008, 09:14:59 PM »

Quote from: Jag on November 13, 2008, 08:49:45 PM

The Florida Amendment was to ensure no 'activist judges' permit same sex marriages and repeat what happened in MA and CA.

The Florida amendment was also worded poorly, although a simple reading clarified it. Voting yes for the Marriage Protection Act sounded like you were voting FOR marriage.

It got something like 61% of the electorate voting for it. It needed 60% to pass.
I am sure that is why it was proposed, the text stated nothing about same sex marriages or banning them.  Florida has had a state statute since 1997 that effectively does the same thing but could be overturned in the courts, so this is nothing new here.  I agree and think that it was worded quite badly and who knows it wouldn't be the first one overturned due to poor wording.  But hell this is Florida where pregnant pigs even have their own amendment in the state constitution giving them rights.

But for everyone else's reference the text of Florida Amendment 2 (2008) states “Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.”
Logged
leo8877
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12587



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: November 17, 2008, 09:30:51 PM »

Well the vote matters not any way, it's going to the CA Supreme Court and probably beyond now.
Logged
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9350



View Profile WWW
« Reply #46 on: November 23, 2008, 11:13:49 AM »

What's the tally on judges in the US Supreme court?

Since Prop 8 was (stupidly) a California constitutional amendment, the California supreme court probably can't do anything about it since they uphold the constitution of both California and the United States.  This will go to the US Supreme court.

I, well... I just really hate prop 8 and the people behind it.  It was all lies, hate, and millions of dollars of false advertising.  It's worse than when years ago the insurance reform bill was struck down because the insurance companies carpet bombed television with constant misleading ads saying how it would allow everyone to file false claims.

Is it bad of me to hope one of the conservative judges to die or retire right about now?  Just in time for a new appointment from the Obama administration?
Logged
Mr. Fed
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 985


View Profile WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 23, 2008, 03:56:16 PM »

Quote from: Turtle on November 23, 2008, 11:13:49 AM

What's the tally on judges in the US Supreme court?

Since Prop 8 was (stupidly) a California constitutional amendment, the California supreme court probably can't do anything about it since they uphold the constitution of both California and the United States.  This will go to the US Supreme court.

No, actually.  SCOTUS does not review decisions about state law and state constitutions.  To the extent that the California court premises its ruling on the California constitution, SCOTUS can't and won't review it.  It will only review federal constitutional claims.
Logged

Popehat, a blog.  Now 35% less ugly!
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: November 23, 2008, 04:05:22 PM »

I dont agree at all with this, but can someone explain to me how a constitutional amendment can be declared unconstitutional?    Ive read thats one of the arguements that people are using to try and get the courts to overturn prop 8.    I dont want this to be law, but it seems to me that the only way to overturn it would be another constitutional amendment.
Logged
Isgrimnur
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8798



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: November 23, 2008, 05:52:12 PM »

Quote from: brettmcd on November 23, 2008, 04:05:22 PM

I dont agree at all with this, but can someone explain to me how a constitutional amendment can be declared unconstitutional?    Ive read thats one of the arguements that people are using to try and get the courts to overturn prop 8.    I dont want this to be law, but it seems to me that the only way to overturn it would be another constitutional amendment.

The court can review it and toss it out on its ear.  See the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.
Logged

Hadron Smasher on 360; IsgrimnurTTU on PS3

I'd rather be watching hockey.
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: November 23, 2008, 07:53:32 PM »

Quote from: Isgrimnur on November 23, 2008, 05:52:12 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on November 23, 2008, 04:05:22 PM

I dont agree at all with this, but can someone explain to me how a constitutional amendment can be declared unconstitutional?    Ive read thats one of the arguements that people are using to try and get the courts to overturn prop 8.    I dont want this to be law, but it seems to me that the only way to overturn it would be another constitutional amendment.

The court can review it and toss it out on its ear.  See the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.

The line item veto act was an act of congress, so of course the court can review that on constitutionality,   But a constitutional amendment like prop 8 is different, its changing the constitution of the state of california.   Again im not sure how you can rule a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional.
Logged
Turtle
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 9350



View Profile WWW
« Reply #51 on: November 23, 2008, 11:25:48 PM »

Fed, then how do things in State constitutions that are clearly violations of the federal constitution's bill of rights ever challenged?

One thing is for sure, I really hate how trivial they've made changing a constitution, even if it is just a state constitution.

This will be an interesting case where it's a constitutional amendment, the sort of thing they've been trying to do for this very purpose of making it hard to challenge.  It's just sickening what a lot of money on advertising, lies, hate, and stupidity can buy.
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: November 23, 2008, 11:44:32 PM »

Quote from: Turtle on November 23, 2008, 11:25:48 PM

Fed, then how do things in State constitutions that are clearly violations of the federal constitution's bill of rights ever challenged?

One thing is for sure, I really hate how trivial they've made changing a constitution, even if it is just a state constitution.

This will be an interesting case where it's a constitutional amendment, the sort of thing they've been trying to do for this very purpose of making it hard to challenge.  It's just sickening what a lot of money on advertising, lies, hate, and stupidity can buy.

Well this case wouldnt have anything to do with the federal constitution bill of rights.
Logged
Mr. Fed
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 985


View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 24, 2008, 04:30:00 AM »

Quote from: brettmcd on November 23, 2008, 07:53:32 PM

Quote from: Isgrimnur on November 23, 2008, 05:52:12 PM

Quote from: brettmcd on November 23, 2008, 04:05:22 PM

I dont agree at all with this, but can someone explain to me how a constitutional amendment can be declared unconstitutional?    Ive read thats one of the arguements that people are using to try and get the courts to overturn prop 8.    I dont want this to be law, but it seems to me that the only way to overturn it would be another constitutional amendment.

The court can review it and toss it out on its ear.  See the Line Item Veto Act of 1996.

The line item veto act was an act of congress, so of course the court can review that on constitutionality,   But a constitutional amendment like prop 8 is different, its changing the constitution of the state of california.   Again im not sure how you can rule a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional.

At least one of the arguments is that the proposition violated the procedural rules set in the California constitution.  Specifically, the California constitution says that propositions can only include an amendment to the constitution, not a revision.  (Or is it the other way around?  I forget.  Google it.)  The argument here -- a rather weak one, from what I understand -- is that Proposition 8 was a revision rather than an amendment, or the other way around.  It's the same argument you'd make if Congress passed a federal constitutional amendment and something was defective in the manner of getting states to sign off on it.

Also, a state constitutional amendment could violate the federal constitution, though apparently that's not the argument here.
Logged

Popehat, a blog.  Now 35% less ugly!
Mr. Fed
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 985


View Profile WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 24, 2008, 04:31:15 AM »

Quote from: Turtle on November 23, 2008, 11:25:48 PM

Fed, then how do things in State constitutions that are clearly violations of the federal constitution's bill of rights ever challenged?

One thing is for sure, I really hate how trivial they've made changing a constitution, even if it is just a state constitution.

This will be an interesting case where it's a constitutional amendment, the sort of thing they've been trying to do for this very purpose of making it hard to challenge.  It's just sickening what a lot of money on advertising, lies, hate, and stupidity can buy.

A federal court can review a state constitution for violations of federal law.  But a federal court can't review a state constitution for violations of state law.  SCOTUS does not take up issues of state law.  A claim that Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution (for instance) would be a question of federal law.

Logged

Popehat, a blog.  Now 35% less ugly!
Brendan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3841


two oh sickness


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: November 24, 2008, 05:46:13 AM »

Quote from: Mr. Fed on November 24, 2008, 04:30:00 AM

At least one of the arguments is that the proposition violated the procedural rules set in the California constitution.

While that seems to be the legal basis of the challenge, I think the spirit of the claim is that, as sexual orientation was found to be a "suspect classification" under the CA equal protection clause, you can't just allow a majority vote to remove rights from a minority class.  Otherwise, vengeful Californians could introduce an initiative that prevented Mormons from marrying anyone.  Marriage as found to be a protected constitutional right in California.

Petition for Writ of Mandate Challenging Proposition 8

Quote
Proposition 8 is invalid under the California Constitution.Proposition 8, unlike any other constitutional initiative of which Petitioners are aware, eliminates a fundamental right — the right to marry — and it does so only with respect to a subset of Californians — lesbian and gaypeople — who "historically [have] been subjected to invidious and prejudicial treatment." {In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757, 840(hereafter Marriage Cases).) If given effect, Proposition 8 would work a dramatic, substantive change to our Constitution's "underlying principles" of individual equality, on a scale and scope never previously condoned by this Court. (Livermore v. Waite (1894) 102 Cal. 113, 117-119(Livermore).) And, because it would prohibit California courts from exercising their core, traditional, constitutional role of protecting the established equality rights of a minority defined by a suspect classification, Proposition 8 also would effect a "far reaching change[] in the nature of our basic governmental plan."

I think I'm going to work "invidious" into my ordinary vocabulary.
Logged
naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4619



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: May 26, 2009, 05:20:17 PM »

Thought there was another thread more about the prop, than what Keith Olbermann thinks, but the search function is all messed up, can't search past page 2...

Anyways, the California Supreme Court upheld the ban, and those who did managed to get married during that time frome are still married. 
Logged
brettmcd
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1355


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: May 26, 2009, 05:33:04 PM »

Quote from: naednek on May 26, 2009, 05:20:17 PM

Thought there was another thread more about the prop, than what Keith Olbermann thinks, but the search function is all messed up, can't search past page 2...

Anyways, the California Supreme Court upheld the ban, and those who did managed to get married during that time frome are still married. 

While I disagree with the ban, the court made the right decision, as I just cant imagine how they could deem a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional.
Logged
Scraper
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3908



View Profile
« Reply #58 on: May 26, 2009, 05:52:24 PM »

Quote from: brettmcd on May 26, 2009, 05:33:04 PM

Quote from: naednek on May 26, 2009, 05:20:17 PM

Thought there was another thread more about the prop, than what Keith Olbermann thinks, but the search function is all messed up, can't search past page 2...

Anyways, the California Supreme Court upheld the ban, and those who did managed to get married during that time frome are still married. 

While I disagree with the ban, the court made the right decision, as I just cant imagine how they could deem a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional.

They couldn't, but chances are someone will file a federal case saying it is against the US constitution.
Logged

" And they are a strong and frightening force, impervious to, and immunized against, the feeble lance of mere reason." Isaac Asimov
Fireball
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


View Profile WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 26, 2009, 05:55:55 PM »

Bump on the road. Look for a Proposition on the ballot next November to restore equality. Eventually, it will pass. Hopefully if this continues, we can at least bankrupt the Mormon oragnization.
Logged

naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4619



View Profile
« Reply #60 on: May 26, 2009, 06:02:22 PM »

part of me hates that because it's like we're gonna hold our breath until we get our way type of mentality.  But the other part of me appreciates that we have that freedom to keep pressing the matter.  (I'm not talking about this issue, but all issues)
Logged
naednek
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4619



View Profile
« Reply #61 on: May 26, 2009, 06:03:04 PM »

here's their opinion...

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2009/05/26/10/supremecourtpress.source.prod_affiliate.4.doc
Logged
Gratch
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 12465


GO UTES!!


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: May 27, 2009, 12:40:18 PM »

Quote from: Fireball1244 on May 26, 2009, 05:55:55 PM

Hopefully if this continues, we can at least bankrupt the Mormon organization.

Heh, good luck with that.  The Mormon church has an absolutely absurd amount of money.
Logged

“My next great decision is just lying in wait.
The action might turn out to be the world's most grievous mistake."
- Bad Religion, Past is Dead
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.175 seconds with 70 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.082s, 2q)