Comments about ‘In our opinion: Democratic processes just took it on the chin’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 26 2013 4:40 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Cedar Hills, UT

I think Barack pretty much summed up what the term 'democratic process' has been redefined to mean in his ridiculous global warming speech two days ago. Basically his speech said that he was wide open to any discussion on global warming so long as you AGREED with his views on global warming. In other words there is no open discussion or respect for other view points anymore... not as far as the liberal radical lefties are concerned. It is their view or else!! Gay marriage is the same. Gays are wide open to discussion so long as you agree with them...down to every detail. The will of the majority means nothing anymore especially when Barack and his Chicago thugs are more than willing to buy votes and corrupt the process anyway. If they lose they just get an activist unelected judge to overrule the vote and voice of the people. Pretty simple. Liberty is dead in America.

Ogden, UT

Actually, the only things that "took it on the chin" were bigotry and prejudice and discrimination. Under the US Contitution, people cannot vote or legislate the rights of others. Good job, Supreme Court.

Sandy, UT

Spot on, Deseret News.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Wasn't it just yesterday you published an editorial agreeing with the court's evisceration of the voting rights act. That act was also passed by large majorities in congress and signed by the president. In other words it was passed by the legitimate democratic process. I'm calling you out on your "judicial activism" claim. You seem to think that it's only judicial activism when you don't like the result.

Salt Lake City, UT

There have always been protections in the Constitution for minorities against mob rule, i.e. you can't vote on people's rights, even if they are a tiny minority.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

The LDS Church lost big on this. It was very unwise to jump into the political arena in California. This paper has to spin it.

Springville, Ut


Are you suggesting that conservatives don't engage in the same tactics of non-compromise?

Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

I see now.

When the Supreme Court throws out popular laws in certain states restricting the proselyting activities of Mormon Missionaries that's being a strict constructionists. If they use the same Constitution to throw out laws you happen to agree with then that's legislating from the bench.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Salt Lake City, UT

Whenever SCOTUS issues a decision News bosses like, they say the court was reasoned and rational. But, when they disagree, the decision is flawed and tramples America's interests. Coincidence?


Just, WOW. So am I to understand that the DesNews would do away with the Judicial branch entirely as a check on the Legislative? Every law that the Supreme court has ever overturned was enacted by a majority in a national or state legislature. Good grief, DesNews, try harder.

Tucson, AZ

We can play with the word "rights" all we want. If any special interests group can change the vocabulary of a populace, they can control how they think.

As for the Supreme Court's ruling on Proposition 8, I agree that they followed the protocol that governs their judicial power; however, the fact that individuals have willfully broken their oath of office by refusing to uphold the laws enacted by the people they represent is despicable. So much for checks and balances that should require them to at least attempt to abide by the oath that they have made.

Salt Lake City, UT

The purpose of courts is to determine validity of law, prop 8 was rejected as violating the federal constitution at two court levels and then rejected by the Supreme Court for not having someone with standing because apparently nobody is harmed by same-sex marriage. It's an extremely concering position for the editorial writer to argue that unconstitutional measures should be allowed because a majority supported it.


The Prop 8 campaign was despicable--especially the commercials, and the "Six Consequences" missive.

There is much I could write today, but I won't. I'm just happy for my gay brothers and sisters.

No one should have to lie, hide or pretend they are someone they're not. I strongly believe in the family unit as important in providing economically, emotionally and physically stable environments for children.

Today was a step forward.

Louisville, KY

First, I disagree with the court's decision. I view this as a dramatic expansion of rights, not the defense of existing rights. Yes, the court has effectively legislated and "found" rights that have never previously been found in the constitutional landscape.

That said, this is not unprecedented for the court. Also, the court's role is, in part, to overturn laws (even popular ones with lots of support) it deems as being unconstitutional so we can't get too worked up over the democratically passed laws vs. court decisions issue.

I believe this is a sad day for our nation and will lead to marginalization of any religious group that will not fully embrace homosexuality as good before God. But it is not all that out of character for the court.

Salt Lake City, UT

I imagine the day will come (probably soon) when a conservative judge will do the same thing to a popular vote supported by liberal, left-wing voters. Then the liberals will cry "fowl". Why oh why can't we see how freedom and liberty has taken a major step back today: there is too much power in the hands of a few judges.

American Fork, UT

A lot of good comments here. Unconstitutional measures should not be allowed just because a majority support them.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The voters of California passed Prop. 8. Then they elected a governor and an attorney general who would not defend it. In which instance were the voters wrong?

Also as a side note, polls today indicate that prop. 8 would lose by a large margin if put before the voters.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

Remember --

The LDS Church only represents 0.9% of the U.S. population....

I'll remember this article if the other 99.1% try to take away our rights.

Who gets what "rights" is not by decided on by popular vote.

We should have learned than from 1838 Missouri Mobs.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

They can't change the meaning of the word. A mirage is a bolt and nut of the same size and thread bound together.

Mainly Me
Werribee, 00

The United States used to be a republic. What happened? (That was a rhetorical question for those who are just a tad slow.)

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments