Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (28538)	2/11/2004 2:08:32 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793843

The courts are not supposed to decide such issues according to the desire of the majority of the population, but according to basic legal principles. Yes, basic legal principles like precedent and legal tradition. And, as the Supreme Court adds, PUBLIC SENTIMENT. The law is not seperate from consideration of historical social mores. There is no precedent for gay marriage, in all of human history. Even the Greeks, those great lovers of pederasty, did not allow same sex marriage. There are no legal or cultural grounds. And the courts have a duty to consider the lines where social mores say THIS BEHAVIOR IS UNACCEPTABLE. I’m not sure what Constitutional violation that would be, but I’m sure that if a law banning hamburgers was passed, it would be overturned, and pretty quickly Well, probably because there is no social sanction on eating hamburgers. As I noted however, there ARE bans on eating certain foods, such as cats and dogs, and those regulations on based on nothing more than social convention. I’m no lawyer, but I don’t see how it would be possible for the Constitution to present a complete list of permitted activities. Isn’t the onus on the government to justify any restraint it wants to impose, if a citizen petitions the courts for redress against that restraint. Certainly. But when some judges on the bench have an agenda that is contradictory to tradition, precedent, and public sentiment, and usurp the role of the legislature, don't be surprised when there are fireworks, as in Mass. If they aren’t hurting you, leave ‘em alone and let ‘em do what they want to do. I can’t imagine a more fundamentally American sentiment than that. We aren't islands in the stream, Steven. There is more to a functioning civil society than consent and harm. Part of that is the body of social rules and expectations, often reflected in a nation's laws, that regulate social behavior. We can't just "do what we want to do". Anywhere, anytime, in human history. EVER. Derek