Clearly the people as whole are the final arbiters of what laws they choose to live. I have a problem with simple majorities being those final arbiters, particularly if we are dealing with emotional issues. It is why the founding fathers made it so difficult to amend the constitution. I think the Supreme Court was arrogant to aggregate upon themselves the right determine what or what is not constructional by a simple majority, without at the same time allowing both houses of congress the same right to overrule them by that same simple majority of both houses. As it stands today, 5 people, just five people properly placed can decide every aspect of our lives should they choose to do so. If that doesn’t scare you it should.

I dont think they should overturn what the People have voted.

It should take thought and serious effort to change a constitution, otherwise, it's just a menu. And yeah, they should be able to overturn what the people have voted, otherwise we'd be the most caprious, disorienting nation on earth - there has to be a basic foundation of belief and behavior that can't be altered by voter whimsy.

It should be difficult to amend the constitution. Just by having a simple majority vote on issues such as these results in mob rule.

It's a tricky one. The article I was reading this morning pointed out that a popular vote was able to overturn the California Supreme Court's decision to get rid of the death penalty in California. One argument being made by as me-sex marriage advocates was that the change to the constitution was a "revision," not an "amendment," meaning it's such a big change that it needs legislative approval. But I think the life and death nature of the death penalty is definitely a bigger deal than the rights involved with gay marriage, so if the court does side with them, it will be going against precedent.

Personally, I don't care who marries who, but as far as legal precedent, I think the court is going to have a hard time finding an avenue to overturn the popular vote.

as me-sex marriage=same-sex marriage.

I don't think the court should overturn prop 8, but they also should validate the unions that have already occured.

I personally do believe they should overturn it and should have the right to do so. If they can overturn jury decisions (and maybe they can't; I'm not up on all the powers of a state's supreme court), they should be able to overturn this. To me, it's a civil right's issue...just like in the Jim Crow days. People believed 'separate but equal' was OK, but now, we know it wasn't. Because it wasn't equal.

"As it stands today, 5 people, just five people properly placed can decide every aspect of our lives should they choose to do so. If that doesn’t scare you it should."

Grandpa, that's not entirely true. First, the court can only hear those cases that are brought to them by legal procedure. They can't just decide to rule on an issue randomly. Secondly, the Constitution allows the Congress to make exceptions to the Court's jurisdiction. So they don't really have ultimate power (although I wish that second part of what I told you wasn't true).

michelin, anyone can ask for a writ of certiorari. Or it can be an expedited case, taken by the "aggrieved".

No it shouldn't be harder to change the constitution. The problem with Prop. 8 and it's predecessor is that the writers forgot to cross their T's and dot their I's which aside from all of the emotion and beliefs on each side really comes down to legal technicality and the law it self. Let it be a lesson learned and don't change anything about the process. If you want to change the constitution simple cross your T's and dot your I's.

Equal rights to marry is inevitable for homosexuals it may not happen this time around but it will happen with in the next ten years. With only a 4 point margin separating the yay's from the nay's it shows that people are shedding old stereo types and ridiculous beliefs about homosexuals.

hypno, I agree that gay marriage is indeed inevitable. I can not think of a greater waste of time, money, or effort in the political arena then this topic.

im sorry but if we always followed the majority rules mentality than we would still have slavery and segregation. There are some things that cannot be voted on. What alot of people are missing is that the law (not really a law more like an addendum to the marriage language that california had on the books) was in direct conflict with the california constitution. the idea that the population is allowed vote to not only amend the constitution but to amend it to discriminate againist a group of people is appalling.

It WAS the majority that eliminated both slavery and segregation, flutterpie

Hmmm. I think to accept that claim on face value G'pa, one would have to belong to the Seriously Disingenuous School of History. Often, majority votes came after the courts ruled.

Steph, I respectfully disagree.

Heck, while we're at it, your answer #10 to Mich's #9 is confusing.
A writ of certiorari is legal procedure, not the court randomly deciding to take up an issue; an expedited case still comes through legal procedure, not the judges deciding randomly to rule on an issue.

Did I miss something in your answer?

A writ of certiorari is an order by the Supreme Court directing a lower court, tribunal, or public authority to send the record in a given case for review.

Steph, filing a case to test a law is done all the time.

Yes, but Mich referred to the court not randomly taking cases - legal procedure IS followed, the choices are not random selection by the judges. Filing a test case is not the choice of the judges.

Grandpa, a writ of certiorari is more or less just the court's discretion to pick their cases from the cases brought to them, not from every case in the legal system as a whole. And you're wrong when you say that "anyone can ask for a writ of certiorari", because they have to go through the legal procedure before they get to the Supreme Court. I can't lose a case in my local municipal court and appeal directly to the SCOTUS. There are proper steps that must be taken first.

Laid out a hypothetical with regards to the 5 judges; I am not into arguing for the sake of arguing, sorry.

Grandpa, I don't understand your last comment. I don't think anybody is arguing purely for the sake of arguing. I agree that the S.C. is powerful, but they do not have the ultimate power that you think they have.

I mentioned it because the accuracy had been bugging me since I read it.

" I can't lose a case in my local municipal court and appeal directly to the SCOTUS." That above statement led me to that conclusion. I am well aware that you that the court of original jurisdiction in the Federal Court system is the U.S District Court, The next step is the Court of appeals, and the final arbiter is the SCOTUS. To presume I thought you could go from a local municipal court directly to the SCOTUS, is either being frivolous or insulting to my intelligence. Either way, I stand by my statement.

Well that's as clear as mud but okay.

I did not intent to insult your intelligence, but when you make a statement like "anyone can ask for a writ of certiorari", it makes it looks as if you don't have a very thorough understanding of the court systems. I was just trying to clear it up.

You also said that "five people properly placed can decide every aspect of our lives should they choose to do so". I was simply pointing out that that isn't exactly the case. Look at the part of the Constitution dealing with the Judicial branch, especially "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." There are some interesting articles about what exactly that means, but most agree that it means their powers are far from unlimited.

intent= intend