Posted on 08/13/2010 6:29:17 AM PDT by massmike
By now most of you have followed much of the fallout from last week's absurd judicial ruling in California where a single judge overturned Proposition 8.
Looking back, it seemed like the perfect storm. We had (1) a case presided over by an "out" homosexual activist federal judge who clearly had a point of view; (2) a team of aggressive pro-gay lawyers who had been quite public about their strategy to use every outragous legal argument they could find; and (3) a recent history of pro-gay rulings using "rational basis" reasoning, tortured uses of the "equal protection" clause, references to foreign law, and other offensive post-constitutional substitutions for normal judicial practice.
But an even bigger problem....
Now it's being revealed that probably the biggest factor was the unbelievably incompetent and un-aggressive way that the lawyers on our side -- i.e., the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) -- conducted the case.
(Excerpt) Read more at massresistance.org ...
Is it true that they will not appeal?
Is it true that the common citicen has no standing?
But even if the best lawyers possible were involved, there was no way for the outcome of the case to be any different. The gay judge was going to rule against Proposition 8 no matter what.
I think a ruling from the 9th circuit on whether citizens have standing is still pending. If one Federal judge (not even a panel) can invalidate your vote and say you have no right to vote, we are living in a tyranny and its time to push back to save the Constitution and Freedom.
How pathetic of Ted Olson. To hear him bloviating about this case was disgusting.
If I&R is invalid in CA, since the loser immediately rushes to Court to have the vote overturned, then I&R ought to ended.
What’s the point of spending all the time and money on an issue only to have the Court tell the voters to go to hell.
And if the voters voted to outlaw inter-racial marriage, would your position still be the same?
As much as people do not like the result, the decision raises some very basic questions.
This is a separation of powers violation as one branch crosses way over into another branch of government. It is not the business of a d@amn judge to consider the debate surrounding a law properly passed.
All that is needed is to impeach a few of these Fudges. Get them to defend their radical, filthy decisions in the Senate. Make them stand up to cross examination.
Our Framers counted on the threat of impeachment to remind judges to stay within the law. When conservatives take the House, it is time to impeach Walker and disband the 9th Circus.
Straw man. Not the issue. Irrelevant.
The basic question is why a single judge feels he can redefine an institution that has well served all societies through recorded history.
Specifically that “Mob Rule” is checked against individual rights.
Back in the day, Inter-racial marriage was considered to be morally wrong. People tried to stop it back then. Do we consider it wrong today? Do we prohibit it today?
Same could be said about inter-faith marriage. Some religions will not marry unless both belong to that faith. Does not prevent those people from being married at City Hall...
Disagree. Both are examples of defining marriage.
true but a good lawyer will ALWAYS preserve objections and the record for appeal.
If ithese were televangelist lawyers who were lost in the mire of religion in this debate, they lost long before they began.
Anyone have links to their brief?
So the legislators only have to find a selected judge, put on a weak defense, lose, then surrender before appeal in order to keep/terminate any referendum.
I will not be seeing arnold’s movie this or any weekend.
There is no "law in question". That's what makes this such a big deal. Prop. 22 was a statute that was struck down as unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court.
Prop. 8 was a direct amendment to the state constitution. The California Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that it was a valid change. This black-robed homosexual tyrant has declared that the people of California cannot amend their own constitution in such a manner. I say that should absolutely give the citizens standing for appeal.
Too bad my say doesn't matter.
Sounds like a great political poster. You can have a picture of the words “Prop. 8” X’ed out with a picture of the governator that says. This vote is terminated.
You lowly peasants need to sit down and shut up and obey your overlords. You have the right to consent to be governed, not to dissent from being governed. /s
By your logic, what should be done if a judge reversed settled law and banned inter-racial marriage?
I agree that Fudges flick away state law/constitutional amendments as easily as lint and with as much thought.
Gee, when this issue makes it to Scotus, I wonder if the Wise Latina or the Bull Dyke will resort to foreign law for guidance. Maybe they will refer to a Muslim country?
Correct. What does the U.S. Constitution say about the wording of state constitutions?
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.