Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Gary
climber
That Long Black Cloud Is Coming Down
|
|
What's your recourse if the Big Court goes the other way?
You can't vote them out. All you can do is wait for them to die, but by then the damage done will be permanent.
You work within the system established by the constitution. Democracy ain't easy.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Mr Kos writes:
"The opinion of the majority cannot be used to strip rights from the individual."
How do you account for voter-approved taxes on minorities ( such as cigarette smokers ) ?
Property rights are rights too.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"What's your recourse if the Big Court goes the other way?"
Well, that would be a tragic disappointment, wouldn't it? Kinda like the way the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of corporations over citizens...
Yeah, it would be a bummer, but what's the alternative? Obviously, the Prop 8 supporters aren't gonna just let the Cali court have the final word.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"Skip isn't worth bothering with"
Dr. F, February 6, 2012, 5:27 pm
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Mr Milktoast writes:
"The recourse if Scotus goes against civil rights is already stated - another initiative to overturn the first one."
Do you think abortion would be legal anywhere in The Bible Belt today if a Supereme Court ruling could be un-done by a state initiative?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Breaking: California Federal Appeals court declares Prop 8 is indeed unconstitutional, affirming the lower court's earlier ruling...
Next stop, SCOTUS!!!
Yeah, it would be a bummer, but what's the alternative? Obviously, the Prop 8 supporters aren't gonna just let the Cali court have the final word.
The Ninth Circuit is not a "California Federal Appeals court" or "the Cali court." We can all have our own opinions as to the correctness of any of these decisions, but if you don't understand the basics of our federal court system, you might be better served by learning them before playing legal reporter.
|
|
Gary
climber
That Long Black Cloud Is Coming Down
|
|
It can't be undone by initiative. Unless it's the start of a constitutional amendment, as you know.
Governments can give extra rights, though, like when Ronald Reagan allowed abortion in California before Roe v. Wade.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
I swear to goodness, Chaz, sometimes you are oppositional for the sake of being oppositional.
Stop asking questions, and answer this one:
What do you think about the 9th circuit affirmation today? Do you think Prop 8 is appropriate legislation or not?
|
|
Mr. Rogers
climber
The Land of Make-Believe
|
|
DMT is right. If SCOTUS goes the other way, it does not mean that gay marriage is unconstitutional, it just means that Prop 8 is constitutional. Basically, the question of gay marriage remains "in play," and folks can have referendums, pass laws, or whatever they please.
As for Chaz's questions on smokers, as long as there is a rational relation between the legislation and a legitimate state interest, then such economic legislation is acceptable.
What is interesting about this case, is that instead of trying to analyze Prop 8 using a stricter standard (one that would be used if Prop 8 restricted interracial marriage, for example), Olson and Boies challenged the law on the basis that there was no rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. Apparently, way back when this was at trial, the witnesses put up by the Prop 8 supporters to testify as to the alleged rational relationship and the legitimate state interest got savaged.
Apparently, it's one thing if you make a lot of speeches about gay marriage leading to the downfall of western civilization. It's another altogether if someone gets to cross examine you on those statements.
Also of interest: Ted Olson and David Boies were on opposite sides of Bush v. Gore. Check out their wikipedia pages. It's a bit like Lex Luthor and Superman teaming up.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
blahblah, are you one of those grammar-fascists, too?
I hate those guys.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
What do I think, Apogee?
I think it's none of the government's business. It should never have been addressed at any level.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Thanks, Chaz. I tend to agree with you on that one.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
The supes will just as likely decline to hear the case. No real national issue to resolve- it's a state initiative. Obviously no circuit split either. Either way, there will likely be a petition for a rehearing en banc before things go up to the next level.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
^^ which one are you skip?
Is this like Pete Townshend looking at Kiddie pics for "research on a book".
"I was just looking for pics of flayboyant gay guys to post on SuperTaco!". Sure skipt, then why hare there dozens saved on your computer?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
It's funny how people will interpret things to support THEIR beliefs.
Suppose Prop. 8 struck down all gun ownership. The righties would be up in arms about how it was unconstitutional.
But Prop. 8 stuck down the right of gays to marry. Now it's "Our votes don't matter! Goverment has run amuck!"
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
These things are just never simple....
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
As an interesting aside to Mr. Rogers post, several organizations tried to get the court to release the tape of the Prop 8 testimony, but the supporters of Prop 8 successfully blocked it.
Not hard to figure out why.
Thursday's 3-0 ruling was a victory for Prop. 8's sponsors, a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage. They argued that disclosing the videos - even more than two years after the January 2010 trial - would subject their expert witnesses to harassment and chill testimony in future cases.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/02/BABJ1N282P.DTL#ixzz1ljKNhWBY
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!