Free Republic

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked a proposal that would split the state into three from the November ballot. The court wrote that it took the step “because significant questions have been raised regarding the proposition’s validity and because we conclude that the potential harm in permitting the measure to remain on the ballot outweighs the potential harm in delaying the proposition to a future election.” Last week, an environmental group sued to have the measure removed from the ballot. To substantially alter the state's governance under the California constitution, the group argued, a constitutional convention would need to...

Senate Republicans were irate at Goodwin Liu's opposition to President George W. Bush's Supreme Court candidates. Imagine their indignation if they'd known that Liu had a hand in a Supreme Court opinion that, if it had prevailed, might have kept Bush out of the White House. The information comes from Herma Hill Kay, a law school colleague of Liu's at UC Berkeley. She wrote to the state Commission on Judicial Appointments in support of Gov. Jerry Brown's nomination of Liu to the California Supreme Court, after President Obama's choice of the 40-year-old academic for a federal appeals court seat in...

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A U.C. Berkeley law professor whose nomination to a federal appeals court was blocked by Senate Republicans is about to become a member of the California Supreme Court. The state's three-member Commission on Judicial Appointments unanimously voted to approve Liu's nomination by Gov. Jerry Brown on Wednesday. T

Gov. Jerry Brown nominated UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the California Supreme Court Tuesday, giving the state high court a fourth Asian justice and a collegial liberal who is likely to be strongly supportive of civil rights. Liu was President Obama's pick for a seat on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but he failed to garner enough Republican support. Liu, 40, has never been a judge, but his colleagues at Berkeley, including conservatives, strongly endorsed him for the position. Liu, a graduate of Yale Law School, is the son of Taiwanese immigrants. He was born in...

A defendant charged with sexually abusing a child under 14 by using threats or coercion can't argue that the victim consented, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday, resolving a 27-year dispute over the meaning of California's molestation laws. Most molesting cases are charged under a law that makes it a crime to commit a "lewd or lascivious act" on a child under 14, who is considered incapable of consenting freely. Thursday's case, from Santa Clara, involved a more serious charge, molestation through force or duress. A defendant convicted under that law faces a mandatory prison term of up to 10...

Yesterday - less than three months after Kenneth W. Starr and I appeared in the California Supreme Court on behalf of our ProtectMarriage.com Campaign to defend Prop 8 - the Court finally issued its decision... all 185 pages of it! By a 6 to 1 vote, a nearly-unanimous majority of the Supreme Court upheld the vote of the people by which Prop 8 was passed into law to protect traditional marriage in our State Constitution. You can read the decision here as it appears on the Court's website. While there were no real surprises in the decision, and it looks...

December 23, 2008, 4:00 a.m. Gross Dereliction of DutyBy the Editors As attorney general of California, Jerry Brown has a duty to defend the state and its laws in court. That duty requires him to offer the best grounds in defense of any law that may reasonably be defended. In a brief he filed last Friday in the case challenging Proposition 8 — the ballot measure that amended California’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage — Brown grossly violated that duty. On Election Day, California voters approved Proposition 8. Opponents of Proposition 8 then rushed to court to invalidate it...

Attorney General Jerry Brown's legal challenge to California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage marks the first time that the state's top lawyer has refused to defend a newly enacted ballot measure since 1964 - another epic discrimination case that eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In November 1964, an overwhelming 65 percent majority of the state's voters approved Proposition 14, a constitutional amendment that overturned a fair-housing law and allowed racial discrimination in property sales and rentals.Attorney General Thomas Lynch - newly appointed to succeed Stanley Mosk, a Prop. 14 opponent who had just been named to the state Supreme...

Case No. 8168047 IN THE Supreme Court of the State of California KAREN 1. STRAUSS et al., Petitioners, v. MARK B. HORTON, as State Registrar of Vital Statistics, etc., et al., Respondents; DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH et al., Interveners. INTERVENERS' OPPOSITION BRIEF KENNETH W. STARR (Bar No. 58382) 24569 Via De Casa Malibu, CA 90265-3205 Telephone: (310) 506-4621 Facsimile: (310) 506-4266 ANDREW P. PUGNO (Bar No. 206587) LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW P. PUGNO 101 Parkshore Dr Ste 100 Folsom, CA 95630-4726 Telephone: (916) 608-3065 Facsimile: (916) 608-3066 Email: andrew@pugnolaw.com Attorneys for Interveners TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES iii ISSUES PRESENTED 1...

California’s Rush To Judgment on Same Sex Marriage December 20th, 2008 By JERRY REMMERS Only in California can the bizarre become the norm. In a spate of a few hours Friday afternoon, briefs were filed with the state Supreme Court challenging, supporting and extending a ban on same sex marriages. Backers of Proposition 8, the initiative that bans same sex marriage, petitioned to nullify the 18,000 marriages conducted after the high court voted 4-3 approving such nuptials. State Attorney General Jerry Brown countered with a brief indicating he could not support the proposition because “the amendment process cannot be used...

SAN FRANCISCO - California's attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now joining forces with homosexual activists to overturn the results of Proposition 8. In a dramatic reversal, Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a legal brief saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is itself unconstitutional because it deprives a minority group of a fundamental right. Earlier, Brown had said he would defend the ballot measure against legal challenges from gay marriage supporters. But Brown said he reached a different conclusion "upon...

SAN FRANCISCO — In a sharp rebuke to supporters of a contested state ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage, the California attorney general said Friday that the measure was constitutionally indefensible and should be overturned. The attorney general, Jerry Brown, had previously hinted of his opposition to the measure, Proposition 8, but made his legal opinion concrete on Friday in a brief to the California Supreme Court, which is reviewing the measure. “Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification,” Mr. Brown said in a statement. The attorney...

Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. Solicitor General who led the inquiry into President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica L. Lewinsky, will argue the case in favor of upholding a ban on gay marriage before the California Supreme Court. Starr was today named lead counsel for the official proponents of Proposition 8. This afternoon, the group filed court briefs defending the legality of the proposition, which was approved by 52% of California voters last month throwing into question thousands of marriages performed during the five months the practice was legal in the state. The briefs are in response to a...

SAN FRANCISCO -- California Attorney General Jerry Brown has changed his position with respect to the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8. Brown filed a brief Friday saying the measure, which amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman, is itself unconstitutional because it deprives gay couples of a fundamental right.

SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court plunged back into the same-sex marriage wars Wednesday, agreeing to decide the legality of a ballot measure that repealed the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed in California.. . . Kennard's vote a bad sign? While both sides cheered the court's decision to take up the cases, Kennard's lone vote to deny review could spell trouble for opponents of Prop. 8. Kennard is the court's longest-serving justice, having been appointed in 1989, and has been one of its foremost supporters of same-sex couples' rights. Without her vote, the May 15...

Although we too will welcome the day that Proposition 8 is consigned to history and the right to same-sex marriage is restored to Californians, we are sorry to see that the court agreed to take the cases directly, rather than letting this issue percolate up through the lower courts. We see no reason for the haste, despite the intensity of emotion roused by the measure's defeat.In fact, that very heatedness is a reason for the court to move slowly, allowing it to rule under cooler circumstances. Similarly, painful though it is to see Proposition 8 take effect, we agree with...

The California Supreme Court voted 6 to 1 on Wednesday to review legal challenges to Proposition 8, the voter initiative that restored a ban on same-sex marriage, but refused to permit gay weddings to resume pending a final decision. The court may hold a hearing on the lawsuits as early as March, a timetable that scholars said was swift considering the complexity and importance of the legal issues. The court's action, taken during a closed conference, suggested that the court wants to resolve all of the legal issues surrounding Proposition 8, including the fate of existing gay marriages, in a...

Responding to pleas for legal clarity from those on both sides of the issue, the California Supreme Court said Wednesday that it would take up the case of whether a voter-approved ban on same-sex unions was constitutional. The court, however, stopped short of suspending the ban, which California voters passed as Proposition 8 two weeks ago after an expensive and hard-fought campaign.

SAN FRANCISCO – California's highest court agreed Wednesday to hear several legal challenges to the state's new ban on same-sex marriage but refused to allow gay couples to resume marrying before it rules. The California Supreme Court accepted three lawsuits seeking to nullify Proposition 8, a voter-approved constitutional amendment that overruled the court's decision in May that legalized gay marriage. All three cases claim the measure abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.read entire article here

The official proponents of Proposition 8 and ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, the campaign committee responsible for its enactment by voters today said it is “profoundly gratified” that the California Supreme Court granted all their requests by agreeing to accept original jurisdiction of three cases challenging the measure’s validity, granted their request to intervene in the cases as Real Parties in Interest, denied the request of others to delay implementation of Proposition 8, and refused to allow outside groups to directly participate in the litigation. “This is a great day for the rule of law and the voters of California,”...