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.
Why does the writer single out Roberts? Scalia voted the same way (along with the libs).
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
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.”