Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lurkette
I'd also like to know what this has to do with the religious right. The dissenting judges were O'Connor (usually the moderate swing vote), Rehnquist and Thomas (both staunchly conservative).
The SC overturns state elections (usually referenda) frequently. State laws regarding abortion and homosexual rights have been overturned by courts that find that those laws are unconstitutional. I'd be interested to see the logic in this case. If anything, it's a move by fairly liberal judges to keep in place federal jurisdiction over exactly the stuff I mentioned - abortion and gay rights and a host of other hot-button issues.
|
I see your point as far as the "liberals" go and I have to nod in that, abortion and gay rights probably were in their mind to keep federal jurisdiction. If that is the case shame on those judges for ignoring the voice of the people.
Again though I reiterate, this was very much a case the Religious Right was happy with the ruling. It was very much a case Bush wanted to win and it was very much an affront to voters.
ANY ruling that disallows the voters voice I have problems with. I may or may not approve of the vote and law, but again, it is the voice of the people and until a new vote is taken and the law overturned by VOTE, it should stay the law...... (except blatantly discriminating laws or laws that take away guaranteed rights in the US and state Constitutions). This case was not discrimintory in any way, nor taking any rights away.