🚀 go-pugleaf

kujebak <kujebak@eudoramail.com> writes:

> On Nov 2, 12:31 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
>> Ian B MacLure <i...@svpal.org> writes:
>>
>> > nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote in
>> >news:87iqrbt7xu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net:
>>
>> >            [snip]
>>
>> >> The California Supreme Court is far less likely to be wrong than
>> >> random usenet posters.
>>
>> >            The ultimate power to decide belongs to the people.
>> >            If the CA Constitution is changed the only recourse
>> >            the CASC would have would be to find the amendment
>> >            in violation of the US Constitution. And wouldn't that
>> >            set up an interesting situation.
>>
>> Bogus argument - we weren't talking about who had "the ultimate power
>> to decide" but rather whether civil unions are equivalent to marriage
>> as a matter of fact.  The California Supreme Court's decision stated
>> that these were not equivalent and gave a number of reasons.  Their
>> opinion is far more likely to be factually correct then the opinion of
>> some random assortment of people who have spent no real time thinking
>> it through.
>>
>> Our system of government allows the voters to make decisions that
>> ignore the facts, and the voters have no more ability to change what
>> those facts actually are than they have the ability to override the
>> laws of physics.
>
> But in this case the voters do have the ability to change
> the decision of the state Supreme Court, without having
> to change, or even further deliberate any of the facts ;-)

Irrelevant - we were discussing whether or not marriage and
domestic partnerships were equivalent, and the California Supreme
Court's opinion on that is one of the best ones to go with given
the effort the court went to in making its decision.  This is a
matter of fact, not a matter of what the voters decide to do.

Are you too daft to understand the distinction?