Skip to comments.Justice Anthony Kennedy Shuts Down Prop 8 Supporters' Request to Stop Gay Weddings
Posted on 06/30/2013 12:20:50 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Well, that was quick. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday evening ordered that same-sex marriages begin again in California, and after less than a day of weddings, Prop 8 advocates filed an emergency motion to halt the unions, claiming that they still had time to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss their challenge to a 2010 ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Kennedy, who is responsible for motions dealing with the Ninth Circuit, was swift in his response. The Associated Press reports that he "turned away the request on Sunday with no additional comment." Keep getting married, everyone!
Dreamland. Skin color changes everything. Just watch when Zimmerman is found not guilty....pipe dreams of blacks showing revenge for gay marriage will be a faint vapor trail.
That’s interesting. Why do we cave to 2%. Makes me sick. USA is becoming the laughing stock of the world with our gay president leading the way. I wonder if he knows that a lot of the population of the world suspect that he is gay?
The second part shows how activist justices sidestepped the constitutionality of Prop. 8 by ignoring both the Constitution and case precedent to argue that private citizens don't have the standing to have their cases heard by the Supreme Court.
Here is how activist judges in California ignored the constitutionality of Prop. 8. First, note that the equal protections clause in the California constitution is expressly based on the equal protections clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS(See SEC. 7. (a))
However, there is glaring evidence in the federal Constitution that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1, had never intended for the equal protections clause to be applied the way that California judges have applied it to Prop. 8.
More specifically, if the equal protections clauses of the federal and California state constitutions were intended to be understood the way that California judges have applied them to Prop. 8, there would have been no need for the states to have subsequently ratified the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments to the Constitution, these amendments establishing voting protections based on specific criteria.
In other words, today's activist judges would be forced to argue that the equal protections clause in Sec. 1 of 14A automatically established voting protections which weren't actually considered protected until expressly protected by the later amendments referenced above.
In fact, noting that the 19th Amendment was ratified to prohibit federal and state governments from prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of sex, please consider the following. Prior to the ratification of 19A, the Supreme Court had decided in the case of Minor v. Happersett that the states could prohibit citizens from voting on the basis of sex regardless of 14A's equal protections clause. And similarly as 10A-protected state laws had legally prohibited otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of sex, legal majority California voters had likewise prohibited constitutionally unprotected gay rights concerning marriage by using the 10A-protected power of the people to approve Prop. 8.
So where the equal protections clause of Sec. 1 of 14A and the California constitution versus the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments is concerned, what equal protections actually means is the following imo. Simply put, states can make laws which discriminate on the basis of criteria which are not expressly protected by the Constitution, as long as such laws are applied equally to everybody affected by constitutionally unprotected criteria.
Again, California judges inappropriately based their application of the equal protections clauses in both federal and state constitutions on PC interpretations of these clauses, these pro-gay activist judges essentially pulling the wool over the eyes of Constitution-ignorant citizens.
Next, the following information shows that the side-stepping response of pro-gay activist justices to Prop. 8 wrongly ignored both the Constitution and case precedent when they declared that private citizens don't have the standing to have their cases heard by the Supreme Court.
To begin with, the Founding States had made the Constitution's Clause 2 of Section 2 of Article III to clarify that the Supremes have original jurisdiction in any case where a state is a party as is the case with the Prop 8 case.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction (emphasis added). In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
In fact, the 11th Amendment was ratified in response to the Supreme's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, a case where private citizen had successfully sued a state that he was not a citizen of.
11th Amendment: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Note that 11A does not prohibit private citizens from having the Supremes hear a case when suing the state in which they are a citizen, the simple fact that a state is a party in a case automatically putting the case in the original jurisdiction of the Supremes under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 shown above. In fact, a good thing later resulted from a Supreme Court case in which a citizen sued her state.
More specifically, the Supremes had actually decided against private citizen Virgnia Minor's argument in the case of Minor v. Happersett that her citizenship automatically entitled her to vote regardless of a state law which allowed only qualified men to vote. But fortunately for Minor, the states subsequently ratified 19A which prohibits the states and feds from prohibiting otherwise qualified citizens to vote on basis of sex.
So based on the Supremes' constitutionally indefensible excuse not to hear private citizens argue their side of the Prop. 8 case against California, pro-gay activist justices are wrongy ignoring their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution not only as much as California judges are, but also as much as elected officials in the other two branches of the unconstitutionally big federal government are imo.
The bottom line concerning federal and state judicial activism is the following imo. Not only do patriots in California need to impeach their state's judges for their failure to uphold their oaths to protect and defend federal and state constitutions, but patriots need to win majority control in both Houses of Congress in 2014 in order to impeach Obama and Constitution-ignoring justices.
You may have a point. These Obama voters I mentioned believed it Zimmermen couldn’t have killed Saint Trayvon in self defense.
But a legal case may not trump the politics of “gay marriage” which Obama and Democrats support. Time will see.
—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—
To think we got this jerk instead of Robert Bork(RIP) sickens and saddens me.
Yes. Federal judges can be impeached, convicted, and removed from the bench, (see Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution). It is possible to impeach federal judges, but is seldom done. Fifteen federal judges have been impeached since 1804. One was a Supreme Court justice.
That would have been my understanding, so I don’t know why it isn’t true.
So what. The Boston Massacre ended worse. Then some stuff happened after that.
Since Prop 8 does NOT violate the Federal Constitution, and nothing the SCOTUS said changes that fact, it takes a mindless Judge to twist the Law and say it does.
Kennedy is that Jurist.
who appointed him again?
Did anybody seriously expect the Supreme Court to cooperate? It is sort of like asking for mercy from Joseph Stalin....
“Can we impeach Supreme Court Justices?”
Sure. Let’s get the people that voted in Obama twice to help us impeach a Supreme Court Justice
There has to be some vehicle whereby the will of the people is taken into consideration. Re DOMA the US DOJ decided it would not defend a law duly passed by Congress and signed by the then sitting POTUS. Same decision by the CA AG with regard to Prop 8.
How can they make that decision and refuse to defend properly passed laws? And then the “High Court” determine that since those official declined to defend the duly enacted law(s), no one else has ‘standing’ to support them? Municipalities decided they wouldn’t enforce immigration law. Do we now have cafeteria justice in lieu of the “rule of law,” as it appears?
Have you seen some of the comments in the linked article. Just as bad.
Liberals have no class. I don’t recall conservatives gloating, name calling, and the in your face taunting after Citizens United, Heller, etc.
Liberals love being gay because they can’t get a woman..so the prefer having their peckers shoved up each other rear ends..liberals are despicable freaks