Skip to comments.Court says backers can defend gay marriage measure (CA)
Posted on 11/17/2011 12:43:46 PM PST by BAW
The sponsors of ballot propositions can step in to defend their initiatives from legal challenges if the governor and attorney general refuse to do so, California's highest court said Thursday in a precedent-setting ruling that could prove pivotal to the future of the state's same-sex marriage ban and its notoriously vigorous citizens' initiative process.
Responding to a question from a federal appeals court that is considering the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved gay marriage ban, the California Supreme Court said the lawmaking power granted to citizens under the state constitution doesn't end once propositions have been approved or rejected by voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
That is the very first thing that came to mind when I heard the news, Prop 187 NOW.
You can’t occupy that....last I checked. I live in crummy California, you are right, we are occupied by loons, libs, and wannabe loons and limbs.
Yeah, we need to look into that (for 187)...is there a ping list for illegal immigration...anyone?
From my reading of the decision, the group put up a terrible defense but in no way should a citizen-place initiative be defended in the courts on the whim of a governor or AG who may oppose a measure the voter's adopted.
Proposition 8, overwhelmingly supported and passed by the California citizenry, will ultimately end up on the same trash heap as Proposition 187, which was supported and passed overwhelmingly by the California citizenry in 1994. Only those propositions that meet with the approval of the politically correct, elite socialist crowd ("the Democrats") ever get enacted. That's just the way it is.
Elected officials not defending voter approved laws before the courts has been a sore spot for a very long time.
It was made worse when Obama and Holder adopted the tactic of selectively-defending at the federal level with DOMA.
No matter what you think of a law, there's a duty for the state to fight for it before the courts. Our system, our body politic, needs the adversarial process or it degrades into despotism.
Prop 187, my thoughts, exactly.
It’s a common sense ruling. If an initiative’s sponsors could not defend it in court, the State government would have an easy way to defeat it regardless of how the People voted. What’s surprising is that common sense came from any part of the California government.
Wonder if this means they can dust off Prop 187
It’s pretty amazing the way these politicians don’t even pretend to represent their constituents anymore.
“Its pretty amazing the way these politicians dont even pretend to represent their constituents anymore.”
Look at the Kenyan Pirate, refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which is the law of the land. Apparently as a foreigner he doesn’t represent US law...
I’ll believe it when I see it. Chances are the elite will just keep fudging up the works until the get the desired results.
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.