Schwarzenegger, California AG Can Stay Out of Prop. 8 Fight: State Supreme Court

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | September 10, 2010 | By Peter J. Smith

[Publius6961]

We need a new proposition that says that when the people pass a proposition, if it is challenged in court, anyone who sponsored the proposition or who voted for it has standing to appear in court to defend it.

No State Law, however it is passed, has the slightest effect on the Federal Supreme Court.
Unfortunately, the legal arbiter of who has or does not have standing before the US Supreme Court is --- the U.S. Supreme Court; or possibly the U.S. Congress.

[gidget7]

Ridiculous. Following the constitution is no longer constitutional I guess.

[gidget7]

What explains the left in this country right now is “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”

[Publius6961]

There is so much Bullshit in politics these days, that candidstes not only can, but do say anything to get elected. What they do after being elected is more often than not the opposite of what they seemed to promise (hope and change).

I've found the best indicator on how to vote is by identifying the individuals and groups who oppose certain candidates or propositions.

Since Alice in Wonderland politics kicked in, in 2007, that technique has not failed me.

[DJ MacWoW]

Apparently one doesn’t have to listen to the will of the people either.

[gidget7]

I will be doing the same massmike. You betcha!

[gidget7]

Apparently not. Prop 8 was done to the letter in the state constitution. It is therefore unconstitutional to NOT abide by the vote. But apparently that no longer matters.

[Defiant]

The state law, if drafted as I suggested, could give standing to people who will defend it properly to appear in federal court as parties in interest. The court can determine standing, but when the state law gives a substantive right to someone, that will provide them standing, just as a state law that gives the attorney general responsibility to pursue cases involving the state gives him standing.

[manc]

here’s a question for everyone.

This judge says the don’t ask violates the 1st and 5th amendments.
Now having read them numerous times how the hell could this judge have come to that decision, hell how could the judge have even said that.?

Has this judge even read those amendments, hell has any jjdge in CA ever read the constitution.?