Attack on the independent judiciary

[AquaMan]

The impression I have, as a native, is that you are wildly overestimating what "most in this state" favor. We still have a roughly 50/50 split of party registration.  Most? Most don't even go to a church or understand our governmental system. A very small amount even vote or register to vote. That leaves a huge vacuum that is being exploited by radical politicians who use what people "think" they know against their very own interests.

I challenge you to poll 1000 people in a well designed poll of Okies to see if they even understand what a tort is, why unemployment comp needs reforming and whether we want our legislators spending time and money creating paper thin unenforceable laws just to get re-elected. While you're at it ask them their opinion on medical marijuana, Sharia law and gun ownership without any licensing or regulation at all. You won't do that, so just go ride a city bus out to Oakhurst, Turley, Tulsa HIlls or Woodland and ask around. (Don't tell them you're a lawyer though  .

Oh, yeah, don't forget to ask them if we are a Democracy or a Republic.

[cannon_fodder]

OK, got it.

If you move somewhere and **** and agree with the majority, that's fine.

If you move somewhere and want to improve the place - you are a foreign carpet bagger who knows nothing and needs to either agree with the majority or leave.

Yay for the Republic!  THATS why we founded this nation.  So those that have a different opinion can be bullied into leaving.

Since gay marriage will soon be the law of the land,  do you have to get on board or leave the country?

Also... you still have not addressed the actual issue.  You just called me more names.

[nathanm]

but on the "single subject rule"/log rolling. That's right, our terrific appellate judiciary is reduced to grammar police.

And if they didn't, you'd call them activist judges who weren't following the plain meaning of the state constitution. If you don't like the way the courts rule on the law, change the law. If you don't like their opinions on the state constitution, change the constitution. And if the federal constitution gets in the way, change that. Don't complain about them doing their jobs by actually applying the rules fairly.

If your problem really is politically motivated decisions, I'm not sure how you think introducing more politics into the judiciary will lead to fewer politically motivated decisions.

[guido911]

OK, got it.

If you move somewhere and **** and agree with the majority, that's fine.

If you move somewhere and want to improve the place - you are a foreign carpet bagger who knows nothing and needs to either agree with the majority or leave.

Yay for the Republic!  THATS why we founded this nation.  So those that have a different opinion can be bullied into leaving.

Since gay marriage will soon be the law of the land,  do you have to get on board or leave the country?

Also... you still have not addressed the actual issue.  You just called me more names.

Who told you that Oklahoma needed improving? Seriously. You come down here from Iowa, all, what, 30 years of ya? And you know what's better or best for this state? More than 76% of the population (right or wrong) that don't want gay marriage in this state. That said, I get this image of you, hitchhiking alone along winding highways, looking to do good in places that just don't know any better. Wait, you are this guy!

http://splashurl.com/n24jfyc

And as for your point of this thread. It was nonsensical (I called it dumb, but that isn't fair). You champion the independence of Oklahoma's judiciary with the premise focusing on a decision by a federal court. The "Orwellian" bill wouldn't affect the federal court. As for Oklahoma appellate court rulings, I noted in poss that many of the big rulings overturning the masses votes were on technicalities. GIVE ME A DECISION YOU THINK DEMONSTRATES THE HEART OF THE INDEPENDENT OKLAHOMA JUDICIARY. It should be freaking easy as the appellate courts are "striking down blatantly unconstitutional laws" as you posted.

Perhaps you do not spend enough time in appellate forums or better yet in federal court where one is eye deep in thoughtful, legal opinions from the courts. Do you write many appellate or federal court briefs? To be fair, I do not spend much time in court on premises liability or car accident matters. So I tend not to go off on subjects.

[guido911]

And if they didn't, you'd call them activist judges who weren't following the plain meaning of the state constitution. If you don't like the way the courts rule on the law, change the law. If you don't like their opinions on the state constitution, change the constitution. And if the federal constitution gets in the way, change that. Don't complain about them doing their jobs by actually applying the rules fairly.

If your problem really is politically motivated decisions, I'm not sure how you think introducing more politics into the judiciary will lead to fewer politically motivated decisions.

You are doing it AGAIN! You have no idea what you are talking about Clavin. No idea. Here is an honest suggestion. If you want to offer something constructive in a field you are not in, try not coming off so damned "know-it-all" on it.

As it stands, there are some in this state that believe their vote means something. When 76% vote a certain way, they expect a result consistent with their vote. Perhaps these people do not reach my obvious issue that the governance of marriage is a wholly state matter. Or, that expanding the number and nature of protected classes is getting a little out of hand. Maybe these 76% of the people just want the concept of marriage in this state to remain as it was since this state was founded. Maybe it's a religious issue to them. Regardless, perhaps they see their judiciary, which is a branch of THEIR government--not some amorphous/omnipotent superbeing--as wholly unresponsive to the people. 

[Conan71]

Guido, just because 76% percent of a state's population votes for something unconstitutional, it doesn't make it suddenly constitutional.  The lesson here is, you can draft a "statement" piece of legislation which says: "Oklahomans believe marriage is between one man and one woman." but you cannot restrict the civil rights of others based on that.  The whole issue stems from religious moral code, nothing more and nothing less.  There is no way to craft an argument which denies this very fact.  As I recall, the United States was founded by people looking to escape religious oppression, please correct me if I missed something here.

The law clearly discriminates against a class of people due to sexual orientation.  That's no different than denying marriage based on race or nationality, it's selective discrimination.  Even un-married hetero couples are eventually granted the same civil rights as those who are "legally" married based on common law marriage.

I suspect far less than 76% of Oklahomans believe this way ten years later, nationally there's been a sizable shift in that time-period.  People are starting to realize that granting rights of insurance and tax benefits, survivorship, guardianship, and parental rights to homosexual couples in no way threatens their hetero way of life.  Further it's not a trojan horse for people to eventually marry their favorite horse, dog, or five year old niece.

[cannon_fodder]

1) Oklahoma is near the bottom for teen pregnancy, overall health, education, incarceration rate, meth abuse, prescription drug abuse, and overall wages.  Our infrastructure consistently receives failing grades.  This State has lots to offer - but pretending it cannot be improved is just obtuse.

2) The vast majority of Court action is State based.  Further, Oklahoma's legislature cannot destroy the Federal judiciary.  So they are going after the state.  The ONLY reason to change to political appointees (with the appointers, by law, having no qualifications to make said choice) is to gain influence over the third branch of power.

3) The vast majority of OK CIV APP and OK decisions are sound.  Few would disagree.  Go to OSCN, type in 2013 OK XXX and see what pops up, read. 

From trial Courts to Supreme Court to the OSCN, Oklahoma Courts do a fine job.  I'm sure it is not perfect.  They can probably be improved - but this bill isn't about improvement.  It is about control.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Who told you that Oklahoma needed improving? Seriously. You come down here from Iowa, all, what, 30 years of ya? And you know what's better or best for this state? More than 76% of the population (right or wrong) that don't want gay marriage in this state. That said, I get this image of you, hitchhiking alone along winding highways, looking to do good in places that just don't know any better. Wait, you are this guy!

I tell him Oklahoma needs improving.  Since you have brought up pedigree,... well, were you born here?  And have family back to the original 1889 land grab on one side?  Great great grandfather and his brother who each got 160 acres of land near downtown Stillwater....  And have the other half of the family that was brutalized a half century earlier, being taken from their homes at gun point by the lackey's of that "Great American Hero" Andrew Jackson, then force marched from GA and TN into OK, where the land was theirs "as long as the sun shines, the grass grows, and the rivers run..."  Or else, of course until the white man decides to take it from them....

Oklahoma needs a lot of improving, as has been talked about here a lot.

And one thing you said that is soooo right on, is also so tragic...."places that just don't know any better".  So many like that here.

[guido911]

Guido, just because 76% percent of a state's population votes for something unconstitutional, it doesn't make it suddenly constitutional.  The lesson here is, you can draft a "statement" piece of legislation which says: "Oklahomans believe marriage is between one man and one woman." but you cannot restrict the civil rights of others based on that.  The whole issue stems from religious moral code, nothing more and nothing less.  There is no way to craft an argument which denies this very fact.  As I recall, the United States was founded by people looking to escape religious oppression, please correct me if I missed something here.

The law clearly discriminates against a class of people due to sexual orientation.  That's no different than denying marriage based on race or nationality, it's selective discrimination.  Even un-married hetero couples are eventually granted the same civil rights as those who are "legally" married based on common law marriage.

I suspect far less than 76% of Oklahomans believe this way ten years later, nationally there's been a sizable shift in that time-period.  People are starting to realize that granting rights of insurance and tax benefits, survivorship, guardianship, and parental rights to homosexual couples in no way threatens their hetero way of life.  Further it's not a trojan horse for people to eventually marry their favorite horse, dog, or five year old niece.

I strongly disagree with your comparison of gay marriage to the struggle of overcoming bans of interracial marriage. Invidious, racial animus is rooted in centuries of horrific slavery, no right to vote or own property, etc. I simply cannot accept comparing sexual orientation discrimination to racial discrimination under any circumstance.

To the larger point, we restrict the civil rights of people all the time. If you are under 18, you can't vote. If you are a certain race, there may be quotas available to you to give you an edge in contracts. If you are a convicted felon, you cannot vote and lose many other rights as well. If you break the law, we'll throw you in prison. If you are male, we'll draft you. These are but a few samples of facts of discriminatory practices, and it has nothing to do with depriving civil liberties out of sense of unfairness. It's what we as a society have determined to be necessary. It's funny you used a "horse" example, because it takes sitting on a mighty "high one" (I said high one) to not see the reality of our society and ignore its sometimes unsavory predilections.

What you are correct about is the changing times and mores.  If this gay marriage statute were to withstand appellate scrutiny, chances are we could repeal it. But that is for our actual future to decide, not our present looking at what our future might do.

[heironymouspasparagus]

guido,
Did you mean to post something there?
H.

[guido911]

guido,
Did you mean to post something there?
H.

Yeah, I f'd up. I hope I got it straightened out. To your post, I am not from this state. My wife was living here and was in the military when I met her. We moved here in 1996, when I attended TU and later she went to med school. The most important thing I learned whenever I moved to a new state (and I have done it a few times) was to accept the fact that I chose to live in that state because of what it had to offer me--not what I could do to make it more like me. If that's the case, I would never have moved from my childhood home. 

Oklahoma has lots of faults, but the one constant I appreciate is that the hearts of the people that I know are in the right place. God-fearing, giving, welcoming, and tending to look out for one another. These people make up the 76% of the people that, for good or bad reasons, oppose gay marriage.

[Conan71]

Yeah, I f'd up. I hope I got it straightened out. To your post, I am not from this state. My wife was living here and was in the military when I met her. We moved here in 1996, when I attended TU and later she went to med school. The most important thing I learned whenever I moved to a new state (and I have done it a few times) was to accept the fact that I chose to live in that state because of what it had to offer me--not what I could do to make it more like me. If that's the case, I would never have moved from my childhood home.  

Oklahoma has lots of faults, but the one constant I appreciate is that the hearts of the people that I know are in the right place. God-fearing, giving, welcoming, and tending to look out for one another. These people make up the 76% of the people that, for good or bad reasons, oppose gay marriage.

76% opposed it 10 years ago.  I cannot find current stats for Oklahomans, but the shift nationally over the same time period has been roughly 20%. In 2004 roughly 60% of Americans opposed gay marriage, now closer to 60% approve of it.  I suspect the balance is tipping in the opposite direction in Oklahoma as well.

I was one of those opposed to it 10 years ago.  I also misunderstood what it was all about.  I thought it was one class of people wanting an advantage over what I have or that it would marginalize hetero marriage.  Radical activists were at the forefront of pro-gay marriage message and that probably turned me off to the idea as well.  A lot of misinformation was spread by opponents to gay marriage to get the law passed.

Many people who oppose "gay marriage" are okay with "civil unions" because they believe using the word "marriage" co-opts a sacred Christian term.   What they fail to realize is marriage has been a secular civil concept before it was ever a religious one.  If anything the Christians co-opted the concept.

Other reasons I hear for opposition is the stunningly ignorant: "That leads to beastiality and grown men marrying little boys!"  Or "The government will force churches to perform gay weddings!"

People like Sally Kern mistake homosexuality with sexual deviance.  She also makes my point that you cannot craft an argument against gay marriage without resorting to moral code.  She says "It's not a civil right, it's a human wrong!"

I can't think of a single homosexual couple I know that flaunts their sexuality.  They are as private about it as I am with my private life.

Question is, when the courts say a law that 76% of the people voted for is unconstitutional, is it unconstitutional or do we simply assume it's judicial activism even though the majority of the people who voted for the law don't have the slightest clue about constitutional matters?

[Townsend]

76% opposed it 10 years ago.  I cannot find current stats for Oklahomans, but the shift nationally over the same time period has been roughly 20%. In 2004 roughly 60% of Americans opposed gay marriage, now closer to 60% approve of it.  I suspect the balance is tipping in the opposite direction in Oklahoma as well.

This all depends on the people who turn out to vote.

76% who voted opposed. 

I'd imagine due to many people believing there's just no point in voting because they think they can't make a difference. 

Maybe now, a difference can be made.

[Red Arrow]

I'd imagine due to many people believing there's just no point in voting because they think they can't make a difference. 

That's one of the reasons I did not move to the Boston MA area in the early 80s, California any time...

[Rookie Okie]

Yeah, I f'd up. I hope I got it straightened out. To your post, I am not from this state. My wife was living here and was in the military when I met her. We moved here in 1996, when I attended TU and later she went to med school. The most important thing I learned whenever I moved to a new state (and I have done it a few times) was to accept the fact that I chose to live in that state because of what it had to offer me--not what I could do to make it more like me. If that's the case, I would never have moved from my childhood home. 

Oklahoma has lots of faults, but the one constant I appreciate is that the hearts of the people that I know are in the right place. God-fearing, giving, welcoming, and tending to look out for one another. These people make up the 76% of the people that, for good or bad reasons, oppose gay marriage.

Perhaps that is all that should be said about that vote.  As has been already pointed out there would likely be an appreciable shift in that vote today in Oklahoma.

I am reminded that one of the fatal flaws of democracy occurs when attempting to purposely put up something for majority vote without provision of adequate protection for individual or underrepresented group rights.  I'm certain that if banning women's voting rights in the 20's and maintaining racially segregated public places and accommodations in the 50's or early 60's were put to majority vote in Oklahoma the outcomes would have been similar to the 2004 vote to oppose gay marriage.  Yet those notions were no less ridiculous 50 years or more ago than they are today.  Yes we're witnessing right before our eyes the erosion of the oppression that the 2004 vote sought to galvanize.

I am still so moved by the judge's decision last month when he profoundly remarked "the amendment to the Oklahoma constitution is an arbitrary exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit.  Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed.  It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions.  Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights."