California’s Tradition Of Overturning The Will Of The People

Flashback 1994: Prop. 187 Approved in California
Flashback 1999: CA’s Anti-Immigrant Proposition 187 is Voided
Flashback 2008: California Votes for Prop 8
Flashback 2012: Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules
When the left wins, it’s called the “Will of the People”. When they lose, it was because The People were either uninformed (too stupid) or too narrow-minded (bigoted) to know how they should have voted, thus the results must be challenged and the “Will of the People” be overturned.

See how this works and why we are where we’re at today?

7 Responses

  1. Tallyman

    Imagine pleading with sleazy lawyers in black robes and believing that those sleazy lawyers have been purified by their black robes to be more enlightened than the voters to make wise and proper choices. Which is better: majority mob rule or rule by crooked sleazy lawyer kleptocrats? In that choice, I’m with the mob as the much lesser evil.

    • n.n

      Both the dictator and mob are undesirable. I choose objective standards which have stood the test of time. The Christian principles underlying the national charter and Constitution of this nation should provide good guidance. The principles of evolution are objective, do not defer to emotional appeals, and are not subject to extortion.

      • Tallyman

        The choice in California is not what should be or what would be better, but rather the will of the majority or the choice of the few. I’m with the democratic mob, because the mob here is right and righteous. I’m always opposed to the whims and prejudices of judges serving for life without restraint. .I see a repeat of Lawrence v. Texas, where Judge Scalia in 2003 wrote, “The court has taken sides in a cultural war, departing from its role as neutral observer, that democratic rules of engagement are observed.”.. What Judge Scalia might have seen as an exception, I have seen as intolerable repeated usurpation of the people’s rights.

      • n.n

        In this case, I think the mob has taken a defensible, principled position. This is not, however, always the case. It is clearly not always the case. Democratic leverage is not always applied in a right and righteous manner. The value of objective standards is that they are consistent and reproducible, thereby engendering a stable and productive state.

  2. Guest

    If they were wise, they would support equal protection for all unions, irrespective of sexual or platonic relationships. If they were wise, they would recognize that society, and humanity, has a material interest to favor heterosexual unions. Unfortunately, they are not wise, and they have ulterior motives. They want to normalize their dysfunctional behaviors, including homosexual behavior. They want to normalize elective abortion (i.e. premeditated murder) for the convenience of the mother first and the father second. They are morally and ethically ambiguous, and find the principles of evolution to be especially noxious. It’s interesting to note how different faiths can engenders such divergent principles, and that a selective faith is capable of violating human and civil rights without causing obvious mental distress.

    • Igor

      If they were moral, however, they would realize this great truth:
      God does not make mistakes, and what he says, goes.

      If he says homosexuality, laciviousness, lying, cheating,stealing, etc. are wrong, then they are WRONG. No amount of Man’s “wisdom” can change that. And, He does, and that should brook no argument.

      • n.n

        If I recall correctly, only male-male sexual relationships are proscribed. Is that right?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.