I wasn't comparing slavery to either example the OP gave, I was using it to show that the will of the people should certainly be trumped at times. Our government is established in such a way that the will of the people can't contravene the Constitution. That's what the judge ruled here, that the vote did exactly that. If you want the argue that the judge was mistaken, that's fine. I don't think there's a higher issue being done a disservice, though. If the judge, based on the cases presented, felt the law went against the Constitution, he acted appropriately (according to our system of government) to overturn it.
If that's true, he clearly has a conflict of interest. Look for an appeal. Whether the appeal has any merit is another thing.
The proposition procedure is constitutional. It doesn't mean the laws people get enacted are constitutional. Another score one for Liberty in the courts today.
I find it odd that you favor republican form of government when it comes to trumping the will of the people (democratic form of govt.) but then you favor the democratic form when it comes to national elections. The electoral college is there for those same kinds of protections - it is republican form of govt. in every way.
I stand corrected. It would be less open for suspicions if a straight judge had made the ruling. But I still think it was the right decision.
My guiding principle is not republic versus pure democracy. It's about whether the majority is allowed to persecute a minority. I believe in majority rule (democracy) when persecution is not an issue. I don't believe that majority decision in elected officials qualifies as "persecution" if those elected officials have clear limits (subject to Constitutional oversight) to the laws they can enact.
It's not going to be decided by one person. It will be appealed again and will assuredly end up in front of the Supreme Court.
I think the same argument is that, certain things can be overturned. When a law infringes on someone's rights, than it should be overturned. That is a very vague statement I know.
Well the one judge didn't just decide "Hey i'm going to overturn this law" clearly there was a process that brought it to him.
