King George Wears a Black Robe

Since it was a state court, deciding on state law (apparently), there's no appeal to the US Supreme Court.

Of course one could always appeal to Bush v. Gore, if one were willing to risk a contempt of court citation! LOL

The only argument I can see, and it's a stretch, is that the California judges violated the US constitutional guarantee that each state should have a “republican form of government.” That means government by elected representatives, rather than unelected dictators.

I think that a perfectly valid point - but not one that is likely to be sustained by a court, I suppose . . . since SCOTUS as an institution likes to maintain the fiction that there is no such thing as judicial activism.

the subject really is so simple that a young child can understand it. It only becomes complicated when sophists get a hold of it, whether they are lawyers who disrespect the Constitution and the will of the people, or worse, lawyers in black robes who sit on the bench and disrespect the Constitution and the people.

sophist 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.

philosopher O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein] Modern form with -r appears c.1325, from an Anglo-Fr. or O.Fr. variant of philosophe, with an agent-noun ending. . . .

Ahh, but the good news is that California’s judges, even those on the Supreme Court, do face re-election races, as Rose Bird learned so well. Perhaps another recall drive is in order.

Apparently it wasn't literally a recall; CA judges have to be reconfirmed by the voters - and Rose Bird was the first one to fail of reconfirmation.

Was the California Supreme Court wrong in 1948 when it struck down the law banning interracial marriage?

Well according to McCain it would be a state issue. At least that is his position on Gay marriage. He is still opposed to a constitutional amendment to define marriage.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.