[goldstategop]

The California Supreme Court agreed to accept the challenges to Proposition 8 today for review and ordered a hearing next year. Prop. 8 remains in effect and was NOT stayed by the Court.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[scripter]

Thanks for the update.

[B-Chan]

How can a constitutional amendment be unconstitutional? Isn’t the the whole point of these plebescites?

[Lx]

a position opposed by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown

Did I read that right? Must be running for gov or something.

[Loud Mime]

Pictured en banc in the Supreme Court Courtroom in Sacramento are the court’s seven justices, from left to right: Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno, Associate Justice Joyce L. Kennard, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Marvin R. Baxter, and Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan.

Source

[COBOL2Java]

If the Prop 8 opponents lose this round, will it then go to the 9th Circus Court - er, Circuit Court?

[longtermmemmory]

Ok Carlos Moreno is to be targeted no mater the outcome.

[SevenofNine]

Okay let see how they rule if not I am wholeheartly and for recall

[little jeremiah]

If not good news, at least “okay” news bookmark.

[BlueStateBlues]

They put this off until March, four months for everyone to cool down, or heat up.

[YOUGOTIT]

Looks as though the black robed dictators have decided that they could care less what the people say and what the Constitution says and will make the the law on their own. Which is a direct violation of the Supreme Law of the nation.

[pollywog]

This is sickening! Why do I even bother to waste gas and vote any more!! GOD HELP OUR COUNTRY!!!!!
We are going to hell in a handbasket!!

[Uncle Miltie]

How can the Cali Supreme Court rule on an issue they caused?

Prop 8 was put in place by the citizens to overturn the Cali Supreme Court particularly.

Isn’t having a hearing on Prop 8 a tremendous conflict of interest?

I mean, the citizens overruled you Supremes.

You can’t seriously and independently rule on the citizens’ overruling of you.

[NinoFan]

It’s important to note that Justice Kennard voted to deny cert in the case AND made note that she would be interested in a challenge that dealt just with question three (what to do with the licenses that were issued prior to its passing).

Justice Kennard was in the majority decision on the gay marriage case. The fact that she specifically noted that she’d be interested in question three only is, I think, a good sign for pro-Prop. 8 position. Not only is she signaling her disinterest in the challenges, but she is also kind of making it clear that her reason for doing so has nothing to do with letting the issue percolate in the lower courts first, because she seems willing to hear argument over what should be done with the previous licenses right now. That suggests that she’ll be a vote to uphold Proposition 8.

[Bush gal in LA]

Wasn't it these same judges who said that prop 8 was a valid ballot initiative and let it go up for a vote in the first place? Remember the gay community tried to keep it off the ballot ,claiming it was a revision not and amendment , BUT THEY LOST? ,,,So how come these same judges are now going to ‘’REVIEW’’ the validity of the proposition. I don't get it!

[gitmo]

Are they going to declare the CA Constitution in violation of the CA Constitution?

[b4its2late]

The homosexual mafia is relentless.

[VlPu]

MISSING LINK
http://illuminati-agenda.blogspot.com/2008/11/missing-link-between-homosexual.html

[Tempest]

Great, so now the pro-gay media will have the oppurtunity to further silence the prop supporters and fabricate a “wave of support” for gay marriage. *sigh*

Orwell was right.

[dbz77]

Having read up on this issue extensively, as well as the relevant case law, I would have to conclude that Proposition 8 is indeed a legitimate amendment. Initiative constitutional amendments have been used to legalize Indian gaming, impose legislative term limits, forbid the state from engaging in racial or gender discrimination in employment, and even reinstate the death penalty. The last two are especially relevant. An initiative amendment added Section 31 to the Declaration of Rights, forbidding the state from discriminating against "any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." In effect, it was an expansion of the scope of the equal protection clause. If revisions were necessary to affect the equal protection clause, then this section would be invalid and there would be no explicit basis in the state constitution for equal protection in public employment, public education, or public housing. An initiative amendment added Section 27 to the Declaration of Rights, which constitutionalized the death penalty. It was added after the Supreme Court had ruled "that capital punishment is both cruel and unusual as those terms are defined under article I, section 6, of the California Constitution, and that therefore death may not be exacted as punishment for crime in this state." In that same decision, it reiterated that "The cruel or unusual punishment clause of the California Constitution, like other provisions of the Declaration of Rights, operates to restrain legislative and executive action and to protect fundamental individual and minority rights against encroachment by the majority." It is noted that the cruel and unusual punishment clause applies to all persons subject to California law; the only dispute in questions over cruel and unusual punishment is whether the punishment is cruel or unusual. Section 27 was challenged as an illegitimate revision in People v. Frierson , the Court rejected that challenge. Thus, a fundamental right found in the state constitution's Declaration of Rights was affected by an initiative amendment. The decision Raven v. Deukmejian did invalidate an initiative amendment- but the amendment placed drastic limits on state courts' ability to interpret the rights of criminal defendants, limiting state interpretation of state constitutional protections to the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of analogous U.S. constitutional protections. By contrast, Prop. 8 is extremely limited in scope- it only defines one word. State courts continue to have the power to apply equal protection on the basis of sexual preference and orientation, including whether same-sex couples, including those who got "married" before Prop. 8's passing, are constitutionally entitled to tax, inheritance, power-of-attorney, hospital visitation, and other benefits married couples enjoy. They could even rule on whether or not divorce laws apply to same-sex couples- Prop. 8 did not define divorce. And last and certainly not least, state courts can rule on whether or not Prop. 8 is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. To rule Prop. 8 as a revision would effectively state that a revision is required to define marriage, but an amendment is sufficient to define the applicability of cruel and unusual punishment over the death penalty- a life or death issue.

[No Dems 2004]

An interesting factor in here is that Justice Kennard who was one of the 4 who supported gay marriages wanted to reject the hearing altogether. Sounds to me as if this one might not go the way of the fruits.