Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 12:52pm PT
|
Prop 8 was simply a constitutional issue. The only question was whether the majority of voters have the legal right to deny constititional [sic] rights to a minority group. In the end it doesn't matter which minority group or groups were involved...that was of no bearing in the case...it was just noise.
I agree. Unfortunately, today's opinion focuses only on Article III, not on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In so doing, it has effectively emasculated the initiative process, by giving the attorney general an effective veto over any initiative with which the attorney general disagrees.
By vacating the Ninth Circuit's affirming of Judge Walker's opinion, it also leaves open the possibility of another challenge of his conclusion, since there is no controlling appellate precedent now. I think they've driven a stake through the heart of Prop. 8 in California, but not through bans on same-sex marriage. By ending with an armistice, they've managed to prolong a war they could have ended.
John
|
|
julton
climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
|
In so doing, it has effectively emasculated the initiative process, by giving the attorney general an effective veto over any initiative with which the attorney general disagrees.
Good. The California initiative process is out of control.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 01:19pm PT
|
Ha! my prediction that the prop 8 case would go down on standing grounds proved correct. Odd mix of justices in the majority and dissenting opinions. I haven't read them closely, a standing issue case really isn't that exciting even if the result is...
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 01:38pm PT
|
Good day to be an American. Where ALL are created equal (and now are actually treated as such).
And Chaz? You seem a bit confused. 90s ended punk? That would be pretty interesting news to Green Day (formed '87, Dookie released in '94) and the entire punk revival movement that flourished in the 90s.
Bad Religion signed their major deal in 93, Muffs, Warped tour started mid 90s. Punk was alive and well in the 90s.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 05:58pm PT
|
Good, the initiative process was a flawed idea from the inception. "Since you can't trust us voters to elect good legislators you should trust us voters to elect good laws." Is a moronic idea at the very best.
DMT
Wow that is a fantastic summary DMT.
Love it.
|
|
labrat
Trad climber
Auburn, CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 06:11pm PT
|
Think about how much clearer this is..... :-)
"Think about it...
Anything that still needs to be solved is too complicated to put into a commercial. The initiative process is nothing but people voting on things based on short stories which don’t do the subject justice at all.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 06:17pm PT
|
"The initiative process is nothing but people voting on things based on short stories which don’t do the subject justice at all."
Do you think the legislature actually reads the bills they vote on?
Do you think the legislators actually write the bills they pass?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 06:22pm PT
|
No as much as they should. Aproximately half their time is spent getting "donations" to their next election. Well maybe not that bad at the state level.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 06:46pm PT
|
Jebus,
I worked for Masspirg for a short while.
Worst job ever.
I wasn't an idealist, but answered a misleading ad in the Boston Globe thinking I'd be doing some good for the environment. What a sham. I had to canvass rough neighborhoods in Boston trying to sign people up for the Sierra Club. I busted my ass, and only got paid when I convinced people to join.
I was eighteen and it seemed like a good idea at first...but commuting two hours to Boston for the week, sleeping on couches, getting doors slammed in my face nine times out of ten, bad job if you just want to make a buck for the environment.
In retrospect though, it taught me about city life, of which I was completely ignorant, and hardened me the f*#k up.
Sorry for the thread drift, the pirg comment dredged up some forgotten memories.
Yay Supreme Court! All people deserve equal rights.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 07:21pm PT
|
Oh well, now that marriage is ruined I guess there is no reason to ask...
|
|
command error
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 07:32pm PT
|
Dred Scott all over again.
Never thought to see the court go so wrong.
and over DOMA. Hilarious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott
The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that
neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship
in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal
court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary
residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the
Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would
improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 09:08pm PT
|
JohnE, I believe that I agree with your analysis.
it all seems to come down, in reading the decision, on where the controlling law is upon the question of who has the final say on who has standing: Federal or State.
Obviously, this is not a clear thing, hence a 5:4 decision.
Your thinking on the veto of an appeal by a state official seems correct, to me. in the dissent, where it says:
That historic role for the initiative system “grew out of dissatisfaction with the then governing public officials and a widespread belief that the people had lost control of the political process.” Ibid. The initiative’s “primary purpose,” then, “was to afford the people the ability to propose and to adopt constitutional amendments or statutory provisions that their elected public officials had refused or declined to adopt.” Ibid.
The California Supreme Court has determined that this purpose is undermined if the very officials the initiative process seeks to circumvent are the only parties who can defend an enacted initiative when it is challenged in a legal proceeding.
Furthermore, it is not clear who the principal in an agency relationship would be. It would make little sense if it were the Governor or attorney general, for that would frustrate the initiative system’s purpose of circumventing elected officials who fail or refuse to effect the public will. Id., at 1139–1140, 265 P. 3d, at 1016. If there is to be a
The whole issue of "Agency", upon which this decision hinges, is beyond my pay level, though.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 09:09pm PT
|
I also think that it should have been decided on the basis of Vaughn Walker's brilliant decision. It would have been straight-forward, and settled the issue.
They took the easy way out.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 26, 2013 - 09:20pm PT
|
They did take the easy way out, and I'm ok with that, considering the composition of the court. I'm looking forward to reading the DOMA decision: it sounds like there is some good foundational language for future challenges to gay marriage bans.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:43pm PT
|
On this rather significant day, something might be worth reviewing.
This video is of David Bois, one of the attorneys on the Prop 8 case, the day after the District Court decision.
It is long, but the key things start at 11 minutes, where he explains what happened in court. Amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gsxtV3VqQk
By the way, I heard him give this speech in person, and it was moving beyond words.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:47pm PT
|
So, my impression is that there has been a rather large shift in opinion on the issue of gay marriage since the original court decision in 2010.
I think there is no way that Prop 8 would pass now.
Partially, I note the lack of any serious arguments in this thread against gay marriage. I don't know what position possibly exists to defend against the concept.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 10:52pm PT
|
The Court's not supposed to decide based on public opinion. They're supposed to go by the Constitution, and the Constitution hasn't changed any in quite a while.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:12pm PT
|
The Constitution doesn't go by public opinion, either.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:44pm PT
|
Chaz said The Court's not supposed to decide based on public opinion. They're supposed to go by the Constitution, and the Constitution hasn't changed any in quite a while.
Too bad the world around it has!
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2013 - 11:48pm PT
|
The Court's not supposed to decide based on public opinion. They're supposed to go by the Constitution, and the Constitution hasn't changed any in quite a while.
If you think they didn't, cite why you think so.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!