Prop. 8 backers, AG ask court to hear challengesActually, those suits should be thrown out immediately and the lawyers involved disbarred. And some idiots slapped around.
SAN FRANCISCO -- The sponsors of California's new same-sex marriage ban and Attorney General Jerry Brown urged the state's highest court Monday to hear a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn the measure, saying it's too urgent a matter to be left unsettled.
"The petitions raise issues of statewide importance, implicating not only California's marriage laws but also the initiative process and the Constitution itself," the attorney general argued in papers filed with the California Supreme Court.Congratulation, Governor Moonbeam, you are only half an idiot now, in that you actually realize that the court can provide certainty and finality.
"This court can provide certainty and finality in this matter," he said.
On the first part, however, you are still an idiot. I don't like the outcome any more than a lot of other people, but allowing that an initiative BROUGHT BEFORE THE ELECTORATE PROPERLY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and then VOTED IN BY THE ELECTORATE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, according to the LAWS AND CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, raises "issues of statewide importance" is merely stupid. It raises no such issues. The backers of these lawsuits have absolutely no leg to stand on unless they can bring the feds into it. And I don't think they want to do that.
Gay and civil rights groups, the city of San Francisco and others have asked the court to void the measure on the grounds that voters did not have the authority to make, what they say, is a fundamental constitutional change.I'm sorry, you are too fucking stupid for words. Under the LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and the CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROVED RULES FOR CHANGING THE STATE CONSTITUTION, the voters DID INDEED HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE. If you don't like what the voters approved, THAT'S TOO FUCKING BAD.
Look people, I've said it before, I'll say it again. You want change? Work for it. It's not like you had your asses handed to you this time, as with Prop. 20 (or whichever number it was) some years ago. You (we) got beat by what could plausibly be described as a margin of "people who support gay marriage but hate activist judges who pull rulings out of their asses". But if you win on this one, then there is nothing outside of the power of judges. If they can declare that a constitutional amendment PROPERLY BROUGHT BEFORE THE PEOPLE, and PROPERLY VOTED IN UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA is to be denied just because some people don't like it, then there is absolutely nothing that can properly be described as "the rule of law" in this state. They might as well just decide that the state supreme court is dictator for life.
6 comments:
I am so infuriated over the antics of some of these people. As I said before, I supported Prop. 8, I would even support it again.
But after all of this bad behavior...the whining, the protests, etc., many people who once supported it, wouldn't now.
And now this? Like I said before...gay people, you are not helping your on issue here.
By all means, let's give the courts the supreme authority to decide how things are going to be in California. Great idea. Oh sure, same sex couples may be able to get married, but you may not use your barbeque, drive, smoke, hang Christmas lights or pinatas or have sex on Sundays.
Uhm, that should be "own"...not on. Gosh I hate that! Proofread, Dummy ;)
It's a BS argument about the different procedures IN the state constitution distinguishing between an "amendment" and a "revision." If the California Supremes even entertain it, let alone grant, they all need to be subjected to a recall immediately. Remember Rose Bird? You guys can do that again.
I still think the California Supreme Court is somewhat tethered to the idea of the rule of law. This isn't the Florida Supreme Court, whose decision in Armstrong v. Harris--throwing out an amendment to the state constitution after the voters approved it because the ballot summary THAT THEY'D ALREADY SCREENED supposedly didn't comply with a statute--was about to get the majority of them impeached if the 2000 election madness hadn't intervened.
Dave, it's not a BS argument, that should be obvious by the fact that all sides want a hearing on this issue. There is a difference between a revision and an amendment, a revision requires 60% of the vote to pass. A challenge was brought before the election and the Supreme declined to hear it because if the measure failed it would have been moot.
There's also some serious issues regarding equal protection and whether 50%+1 of the population can decide to strip the rights of the minorities. Majorities are not always right, and, quite frankly, this is one of those occasions.
KG, I've looked at interpretations of the difference between an amendment and a revision. I still think it's B.S. The amendment was to codify in the state constitution that SSM was not a "fundamental right". It did not "strip" a right except one that was invented (or "discovered", if you will) by the state SC only six months ago.
One commenter (at Volokh.com, I think) pointed out that if stripping rights makes it a revision, then at the time the signatures were gathered and it qualified for the ballot, it was an amendment but became a revision when the decision was handed down. I don't think there's any way to reasonable argue that.
KG, as you know, the Equal Protection argument would make it a federal question, which everyone has deliberately avoided up to this point, and which I thought they were continuing to do in order to get the shape of state law as clear as possible.
"...it's not a BS argument, that should be obvious by the fact that all sides want a hearing on this issue."
If all sides are idiots, as they have been up to this point, I'd say that's pretty far from obvious.
Post a Comment