Posted on 06/27/2013 7:10:56 AM PDT by sfwarrior
The US Supreme Court issued a mealy mouth ruling today on California's Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Californians voted twice to protect traditional marriage. First on Mar 7, 2000 and then again on Nov. 4, 2008 with Proposition 8 which after its passage became a part of the California Constitution - § 7.5 to Article I.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/06/the_supreme_courts_punt_on_prop_8.html#ixzz2XQSKUJrr Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
How can the California Supreme Court rule a constitutional amendment “unconstitutional”?
At that point it has become part of the constitution.
Judicial tyranny at its finest. Disenfranchised the 70% black voters who supported the amendment.
I could see the US Supremes ruling a state constitutional amendment “unconstitutional” under the US constitution but if that was what the California men in black dresses were tying to say, then the US men in black dresses did not do their job.
The one on VRA hurt Dems.
They’re very clever. They say in one decision that the states can decide, then in the other, where the state decided, they let a Federal court decision stand that undermined the state decision. And why? Because the state officials decided not to challenge the Federal ruling, because they didn’t like the vote of the people, the same people who put them in power.
I would prefer they be straightforward one way or the other. They’re all in cahoots to take us in a certain direction, and anything that diverts the government from that direction shall be thwarted, dismissed, or overturned.
Not surprising.
If they supported the anti-8 crowd and sided with the 14th amendment they argued for equal protection we could all sue the government for the different tax rates we pay, benefits we receive, minority laws, it would crumble the last 70 years of the new liberal deal and destroy the governments destructive hold over the people. They could never again say others must pay their fair share.
We do need to sue for this since we are the aggrieved party and can show how we being forced to pay so much and others paying nothing and getting benefits is against the 14 amendment.
You raise some great points I didnt think of. Worth a try.
Practically Speaking the SCOTUS justices have little regard for legal consistency in their rulings, and that even sometimes extends to the ones we like.
The creating of the constitutional protection of same sex sodomy (an earlier achievement of justice Kennedy's wrt Texas) was dressed up as a privacy ruling.
I am not a lawyer but would be happy to be part of a group that can get this done.
I know we have lawyers on the Board.
When the people don’t vote the right way the courts are there to make sure things stay on track and the people don’t step out of line. The good news is that with immigration reform the elites will be able to import enough voters to vote correctly. The other cool thing is they will lower wages and benefits and force those uppity Americans to work for a pay scale that will be fair to the crony capitalist, union, and government alliance.
Why does the writer single out Roberts? Scalia voted the same way (along with the libs).
“How can the California Supreme Court rule a constitutional amendment “unconstitutional”?”
They didn’t. The CA Supreme Court ipheld Prop 8, and that’s why the gay marriages stopped. The appeal to US District Court (Perry vs. Schwarzenegger) said it was unconstitutional. And the 9th circuit agreed (Perry vs. Brown), but that’s the one that is being vacated because of standing.
Ahhh scrooge them all. Sick of the whole lot of them save for a few. Let them marry whoever they want and then deal with the Supreme Judge of the Universe for trespassing His design for marriage. Shucks to be them on Judgement Day.
FWIW, there is a basic tenant of judicial review that has been around since the beginning. It states that if it can, a Court will find the least restrictive method to dispose of a case. Specifically, if it can procedurally resolve it, then that is what it will do and stop review at that point. After that it goes to statutory resolution and then Constitutional resolution. The theory is (and I think it is a good one) is that you don’t want a lot of tinkering with the Constitution and building a lot of, potential, conflicting case law.
While the high profile nature of this case brought this to the fore, the method they used is so standard and “normal” that it doesn’t get a blink out of those familiar with the method.
Again. Like I said. FWIW
Then this wasn’t a state’s right issue at all. Again, if a gay man can challenge the constitutionality of it, then so can any citizen challenge the constitutionality of the DECISION.
Can’t have two sets of citizens “one with standing and one without”.
The ruling is screwed because it states that ONLY the state can defend the state constitution in court and if the state chooses not to defend it and the state supreme court rules for the challenger, it automatically is overturned, no matter what.
Oh, great! I just checked my email and I have one from Meghan McCain asking for money, telling me that this type of “historic” ruling strengthens Americans.
She’s thrilled and says Republicans need to “move forward,” and now we need to “take our fight into the states to end the exclusion of marriage.”
Includes herself as being a conservative and says “we” need to be consistent in “our” beliefs. Says “our work isn’t over yet.”
All this happened in federal court with Proposition 8.
The California Supreme Court upheld the process and acceptance of Proposition 8 shortly after that vote took place.
After that happened, the homosexual activists, who were pissed off, decided to sue in federal court instead. It was a federal judge who overturned Proposition 8 as a violation of federal law, not state law.
Right, but it’s still a crock.
The California voters who supported it were disenfranchised. And the US Constitution (even in the amendments) does not mention sexual preference among the protected classes.
Age at which one may marry varies by state.
Any man may marry any women WHO is not already married, is not a close relation, is of age.
No one may marry “anyone they damn well please”. No state permits that, even those that have approved same sex marriage. There are still the above constraints which apparently are constitutional.
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.