Tom Hanks:"Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American'"

[_Sethbag]

When a state's supreme court rules that a fundamental right exists under the state constitution, then it is "settled." That's what the judiciary is for.

So, by direct analogy, you do believe that Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were rightly decided.

I'm not Rollo, but this speaks to the same issue you and I argued. No, this doesn't mean that Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson were rightly decided. But they were decided, and until they were subsequently overturned, they constituted binding precedent in US courts.

There are two sides to every issue that comes before the Supreme Court. Usually, the losing side won't be happy with, or will even strenuously disagree with (and call wrongly decided) the decision. But the ruling does settle the matter - at least until it is redecided by some future court or amendment.

And you believe that, while congressional decisions can be overturned and decisions of the state legislature upended by state referenda and legislators removed from office by ordinary majority vote, and while presidents and governors can be voted out of office in routine elections, both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution were intended to create regimes of judicial supremacy in which even one-vote court decisions can never be altered and in which the people, in principle, surrender all of their rights of self-governance to judges who can only be removed from office with considerable difficulty (e.g., on the federal level, only through impeachment).

Daniel, such an obvious strawman argument does not become you. Who here is arguing that one-vote court decisions can never be altered? Nobody. Obviously they can, either by subsequent visitation of the issue by the court, or by constitutional amendment. This is what happened in California, and nobody is arguing that this process in and of itself is bad, or illegal, or un-American.

What people are saying is un-American is the unprecedented action by a majority of citizens to remove a right from a minority which has been previously recognized as a matter of law by the court. It is the removal of rights that is seen as un-American, since America has typically, over its history, stood for strong individual rights - not the taking away of such.

[_Mercury]

And you believe that, while congressional decisions can be overturned and decisions of the state legislature upended by state referenda and legislators removed from office by ordinary majority vote, and while presidents and governors can be voted out of office in routine elections, both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution were intended to create regimes of judicial supremacy in which even one-vote court decisions can never be altered and in which the people, in principle, surrender all of their rights of self-governance to judges who can only be removed from office with considerable difficulty (e.g., on the federal level, only through impeachment).

Too bad so sad danny.

1879: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Reynold's conviction. They declared that the Morrill Act was constitutional, that the government had a right to enforce marital standards, and that polygyny was a barbarous practice.

I guess that supreme court decision was the bad kind but bigotry and Homophobia is all good in da hood.

Mormons are the worst kind of hypocrites, every single one of them.

[_Sethbag]

Except in California, of course, where it did establish it as settled constitutional law.

Last I checked constitutions can be amended as it apparently was with Prop 8.

Exactly. And until they are, the ruling of the Supreme Court settles the issue as a matter of law. What exactly is your disagreement with this?

[_Sethbag]

So, by direct analogy, you do believe that Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson were rightly decided.

Not at all. But they were settled law. And neither dealt with establishing a fundamental constitutional right, like the CA case did.

Uh, you should go back and read these decisions. It doesn't get any more fundamental than what they were talking about.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thank you, Mercury, for your invaluable contributions to American intellectual life.

No, this doesn't mean that Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson were rightly decided. But they were decided, and until they were subsequently overturned, they constituted binding precedent in US courts.

And Proposition 8 represents an attempt to overturn a one-vote state supreme court decision that many, in and out of California (myself emphatically included) think was wrongly decided.

I see nothing un-American in declining to genuflect before state and federal supreme courts.

Daniel, such an obvious strawman argument does not become you. Who here is arguing that one-vote court decisions can never be altered? Nobody. Obviously they can, either by subsequent visitation of the issue by the court, or by constitutional amendment. This is what happened in California, and nobody is arguing that this process in and of itself is bad, or illegal, or un-American.

I don't see it as a strawman. Rollo Tomasi is effectively demanding genuflection before a state supreme court decision.

And so, in effect, do you, by presuming that the decision overturned by Proposition 8 should not have been challenged:

What people are saying is un-American is the unprecedented action by a majority of citizens to remove a right from a minority which has been previously recognized as a matter of law by the court. It is the removal of rights that is seen as un-American, since America has typically, over its history, stood for strong individual rights - not the taking away of such.

You repeatedly declare same-sex marriage to be a "right," yet, since that is precisely the point at issue, you beg the question in doing so.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Except in California, of course, where it did establish it as settled constitutional law.

Last I checked constitutions can be amended as it apparently was with Prop 8.

Perhaps not. The CA state constitution has another provision (in the Declaration of Rights) which may not allow CA voters to keep a right for some of the citizens (the heterosexuals) while not giving it to other citizens (the homosexuals), whether by amendment or otherwise. That's subject to a legal challenge right now, and we'll have to see how it comes out.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps not. The CA state constitution has another provision (in the Declaration of Rights) which may not allow CA voters to keep a right for some of the citizens (the heterosexuals) while not giving it to other citizens (the homosexuals), whether by amendment or otherwise. That's subject to a legal challenge right now, and we'll have to see how it comes out.

Again, whether same-sex marriage constitutes a "right" is precisely the point at issue.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Not at all. But they were settled law. And neither dealt with establishing a fundamental constitutional right, like the CA case did.

Uh, you should go back and read these decisions. It doesn't get any more fundamental than what they were talking about.

My point was that Dred Scott and Plessy declined to recognize a constitutional right for the plaintiffs, while the CA supreme court DID recognize a constitutional right for the plaintiffs. Perhaps there is not much of a substantive difference, but Prop. H8te, in my opinion, is more egregious because it strips away a constitutional right already granted.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

And Proposition 8 represents an attempt to overturn a one-vote state supreme court decision that many, in and out of California (myself emphatically included) think was wrongly decided.

But the people of CA set up that very system with the CA state constitution. You've let your religious beliefs overcome equal protection and constitutional rights afforded all citizens, not just those that jive with your religious dogma.

You repeatedly declare same-sex marriage to be a "right," yet, since that is precisely the point at issue, you beg the question in doing so.

The CA supeme court found it to be just such a fundamental law under the CA state constitution's equal protection clause -- it is the CA supreme court's job to so interpret the CA state constitution.

[_JohnStuartMill]

And Proposition 8 represents an attempt to overturn a one-vote state supreme court decision that many, in and out of California (myself emphatically included) think was wrongly decided.

I see nothing un-American in declining to genuflect before state and federal supreme courts.

I hope you realize that this demurral isn't what Hanks et al. find un-American. The idea that a majority could deny equality to a minority by dint of religious prejudice is what is so offensive.

I don't see it as a strawman. Rollo Tomasi is effectively demanding genuflection before a state supreme court decision.

As would anyone who supported the constitutional rights of Mormons. I don't understand why you're running with this point.

You repeatedly declare same-sex marriage to be a "right," yet, since that is precisely the point at issue, you beg the question in doing so.

You don't know what a right is if you're making this statement. Saying "group X should have right X" is tantamount to saying "group X has right X". It doesn't make sense to dissociate normativity from rights, as you apparently want to do, unless you're talking about mere civil rights, in which case it's incontrovertible that the Mormon Church acted to strip a group of its rights.