Calif. Supreme Court Could Strike Down Prop 8

NBC11 ^ | Tue, Feb 3, 2009

[ScottinVA]

““Brown told the court in a filing that he doesn’t think that Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision or that it violates the constitutional separate of powers. But he said he believes it is unconstitutional because it violates the inalienable right to liberty.”

So, Moonbeam is inviting...no, PLEADING for the judges to engage once again in judicial activism in order to overrule the will of the people.

[Conservativism]

Basically, there are two ways to change the constitution in CA. Amendments are meant to clarify and revisions are meant to make more substantive changes. Revisions face a higher standard to pass (must be legislative approved by 2/3 I believe before put to popular vote). This is to protect the sanctity of the constitution and avoid a tyranny of the majority. Amendments take a simple majority of the popular vote.

The debate here is whether this was passed properly as an amendment, or whether it should have been passed as a revision.

[norwaypinesavage]

Granted, its only Kalifornia, but it is very, very frightening when the court attempts to overturn the constitution.

[Postman]

Do the people of California still have the right to elect judges.....? I recall that years ago they voted out Rose Bird (?), the Chief Justice of their SC, for some particularly egregious ruling. If the court overturns Prop 8, I suspect that the people will overturn the Court

[Conservativism]

Well, there is a separate line of argument which suggests that this is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. I believe the overturn prop-8 supporters have been reluctant to champion this too much, because it will get reviewed by S.Ct., and there is no telling which way the court will swing. I’m guessing that’s the position Brown is taking here.

[Deo volente]

It’s not “We the People’s” government anymore. The government has taken over and it’s our fault for letting them do it.

Actually, a few men in black robes have taken over and are dictating their particular agenda to the rest of us.
What "the People" want is irrelevant. The only thing that counts is what these liberal judges want.

[MIT-Elephant]

Everybody who lives there and is reading this should think about leaving California. It has ceased to carry the republican form of government...it is a kleptocracy, taking from producers to address all sorts of fake and fashionable needs.

I’d move out of it if I hadn’t already done so! Great decision.

[kaehurowing]

“Calif. Supreme Court Could Strike Down Prop 8”

The again, they could not. . .

Typical sensationalist MSM headline.

[SunkenCiv]

United Nations Population Fund Leader
Says Family Breakdown is a Triumph for Human Rights
LifeSiteNews | February 3, 2009 | Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Posted on 02/03/2009 5:07:11 PM PST by MountainLoop
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2177815/posts

[California’s 58] Counties fighting back against state
SacBee: Capitol Alert | 2/4/8 | Shane Goldmacher
Posted on 02/04/2009 9:34:51 AM PST by SmithL
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2178245/posts

[mlo]

"So, how can the Cali Supreme Court strike down a state constitutional amendment and still keep a straight face?"

They haven't done so. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[spunkets]

"Brown... it is unconstitutional because it violates the inalienable right to liberty.

In all other cases, these foul slugs could care less about liberty, and slit your throat if you don't go along with their dictates.

[Impy]

Absurd challenge but it’s not the drugs, he just doesn’t care about the law.

He wants to be the champion of gay rights.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“Well, there is a separate line of argument which suggests that this is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.”

---

I think that’s a risible argument, even under the Romer precedent. For it to be true, it would mean that no state could limit marriage to one man and one woman, and the EP Clause of the 14th Amendment has never been interpreted in such a way by any federal court. As you pointed out, basing the opinion on the 14th Amendment would invite SCOTUS review, and every state supreme court that has instituted gay marriage or civil unions by judicial fiat based its opinion solely on the state constitution’s EP clause so as to avoid SCOTUS review (since SCOTUS surely would overturn the decision).