fenrisranger (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fenrisranger) wrote2008-12-20 10:44 am
fenrisranger) wrote2008-12-20 10:44 am
Entry tags:
(no subject)
From Jerry Brown asks California Supreme Court to void gay-marriage ban
Voters are allowed to amend other parts of the Constitution by majority vote, but to use the ballot box to take away an "inalienable" right would establish a "tyranny of the majority," which the Constitution was designed, in part, to prevent, [California Attorney General Brown] wrote.
. . .
In an interview, Andy Pugno, the lawyer for Protect Marriage, called Brown's argument "an astonishing theory."
Bullshit. That's nothing astonishing. That's an argument I made in PoliSci 101. (Actually, it's 110, but whatever.) That's an argument that 90% of the rest of my mostly-oblivious PLS class could have come up with as well. You know why? Because it's basic and it's true.
Oh, and in computer news? CD drive doesn't work. I don't remember if I mentioned that. I'm pissed.
Voters are allowed to amend other parts of the Constitution by majority vote, but to use the ballot box to take away an "inalienable" right would establish a "tyranny of the majority," which the Constitution was designed, in part, to prevent, [California Attorney General Brown] wrote.
. . .
In an interview, Andy Pugno, the lawyer for Protect Marriage, called Brown's argument "an astonishing theory."
Bullshit. That's nothing astonishing. That's an argument I made in PoliSci 101. (Actually, it's 110, but whatever.) That's an argument that 90% of the rest of my mostly-oblivious PLS class could have come up with as well. You know why? Because it's basic and it's true.
Oh, and in computer news? CD drive doesn't work. I don't remember if I mentioned that. I'm pissed.