[Reactionary]

"The decision did not come from a federal court (the 9th circuit), it didn't come from the California Supreme court and it wasn't even a state appellate court, it was just an insignificant county superior court."

You know liberalism is a mental defect when an insignificant superior court judge believes he has the right to "interpret" the Constitution.

Imperial hubris, anyone?

[Boot Hill]

"an insignificant superior court judge believes he has the right to "interpret" the Constitution."

A superior court judge has both the right and the duty to interpret the Constitution. The problem in the present case is that the judge failed to interpret the Constitution, rather relying on some nebulous "basic human rights" theory which is the hallmark of leftists that reject the Bill of Rights that were penned by our founding fathers.

--Boot Hill