Posted on 11/11/2008 9:46:11 AM PST by SmithL
The California Supreme Court could rule as early as this week on a lawsuit that seeks to invalidate Proposition 8, court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said today.
Meanwhile, more than 40 Democratic state legislators filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of opponents of the gay marriage ban approved last week by California voters.
The lawmakers -- including Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President pro Tem Don Perata and incoming Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg -- maintain the initiative process was improperly used.
They say only the Legislature can place a measure before voters that radically revises the California Constitution.
That's the same argument the ACLU and gay rights groups are making in their lawsuit, which also contends the constitutional amendment would undo the constitution's commitment to equality for everyone.
Supporters of Proposition 8 have called the lawsuit "frivolous" and "an insult to voters."
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Then why did they go to all the trouble of voting on Prop. 8 in the first place?! Typical of the left, using the courts to invalidate the will of the people.
Then why did the Secretary of State put this on the ballot? What a major waste of time and money if it is declared null and void!
If this is the case, then every initiative that was passed as a constitutional amendment would be invalid.
[[They say only the Legislature can place a measure before voters that radically revises the California Constitution]]
Translation= We the state government will enact laws regardless of the people’s wishes, and the people have NO right to challenge. If we the legislation decide our agenda should be law, the we the legislation are hte only ones that can represent the passed law to be put to a vote by you the people, and if we decide not to represent hte law- well then tough luck.
Whos gonna stop them?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Unfortunately I have no doubt they’ll find a way to overturn Prop 8.
I’m sure the pro-Prop 8 people took this into account.
I don’t get it. The constitution is the root of laws for the state. If you can’t do something because it’s against the constitution...you change the constitution. How can courts rule that the change to the constitution is against the constitution? Makes no sense.
Also if they had an issue with this...shouldn’t they have complained BEFORE it was voted on? Maybe they did so this point may be moot. However, how can one change the constitution if a judge can just rule changing the constitution is against the constitution?
I asked this question at a government class and was told until something happens, you can’t rule on it. It seems absolutely ridiculous to go through all the trouble and the expense and then have it be overturned. But we know that’s not what is supposed to happen. If this gets overturned and Republicans DO NOTHING about it...it’s all over for us. The other thing that must be fought is Stuart Smalley should they find enough votes to elect him. If that little man becomes a Senator, I believe there is no hope for us, and I mean that.
Question: Why didn't the drafters add a provision that took jurisdiction for challenges to Prop 8 away from the court that created (out of whole cloth) the need for Prop 8? Give original jurisdiction to the US district court, and at least it gets to the US Supreme Court eventually, where it has a chance.
That's a cop-out.
YOU elect these losers. If you don't like what they do, don't elect 'em in the first place.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
That's the same argument the ACLU and gay rights groups are making in their lawsuit, which also contends the constitutional amendment would undo the constitution's commitment to equality for everyone.
Where was this argument BEFORE the vote?
I hope they do. Let’s get the decision out of the way, whatever it is, and move on.
They say only the Legislature can place a measure before voters that radically revises the California Constitution.
Then explain how you allowed untold millions to be spent on something that wasn’t legal? Where were your voices then?
Ahhh...but when you LOSE then its time to rewrite the rules. I see.
So I can argue that because Zero won by just a little bit, its not right that he take office?
YOU LOST! Get it? YOU LOST!
Get over it. Stop wating the court’s time with these legal fictions.
The battle over sacred rights...
1) The fundamental right of the people to vote in an initiative process and have that vote counted.
2) The right for 3% of the people to change the definition of a 6,000 year-old institution known as marriage.
Now we know where our public servants’ priorities lie.
We have fallen through the looking glass.
You mean move on to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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.