Last login: Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Tom, I think your comment about "different realities" is quite interesting. That is frequently a tactic used by people when they are unable to defend their position in a debate. The reason "never the twain shall meet" is oftentimes because one party is reluctant to admit when they have flawed logic, despite that being very succinctly drawn out for them by the other side. "I can't beat your argument so we'll just agree to disagree. That way I can save face." This tactic is most often employed when it comes to discussions that involve prejudices towards other people. Point is, you did not answer Kelsie's question with good rationale.
How are the voters of California DIRECTLY harmed by THIS ballot initiative not being upheld? Your personal point of view doesn't matter in the court of law. You have to present TANGIBLE evidence. This is also a challenge that vexed the attorney for Prop 8 in court. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs were able to show very concrete evidence of how passing this initiative did cause them, and others like them, direct harm.
Our elected officials are not there to make sure that they cater to every whim of the majority. They are also expected to employ common sense in their decision making processes. They are expected to rise above lynch mob mentality and work for the greater good of ALL Californians, not just those who decided to show up in greater numbers on election day.
Would you also advocate that the Governor and AG be required to represent in court parties that successfully put reinstitution of segregation to a vote of the people? That is a question that Hawkins had for Cooper. Maybe you can answer that question better than he did.
At any rate, California is in a budget crisis. We have elected officials who we expect to use their good judgement and figure out a way to spend our limited state funds with frugality. Is it really in the best interest of ALL Californians for our state government to spend millions of dollars on a legal pursuit that has already been determined to be unconstitutional by a state supreme court (1st time around) and by (most recently) a federal district court? This question becomes even more poignant when the issue of harm is broached. If there is no harm done to the proponents, then their reason for pursuing this issue appears to be one of animus. I can think of many, many better ways to spend our limited state funds that will benefit the majority of the people of this state., not just the ones who cast votes in November.
December 14, 2010 at 1:57 p.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )