[OneWingedShark]

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that only the losing defendants in that case--the governor and attorney general of California--had standing to appeal that decision. When they refused to do so, Prop 8's official sponsors filed the appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and pursued it all the way to the Supreme Court.

What the court did here was rule that malfeasance/misfeasance/nonfeasance on the part of these rulers is a-ok: that is, essentially, what they have said here.
The question is why? And it has an easy answer: Proposition 8 was [and is] completely valid as an amendment to California's Constitution — that the governor and AG are required to see that the laws are upheld and faithfully executed is, apparently, irrelevant — moreover, this ruling effectively strips people of the right to petition the federal government when a State is violating the 14th Amendment (after all, only the government has standing).

[1010RD]

It is a curious ruling. Essentially saying that A. Elections matter and B. Elected officials can ignore laws they don’t like, despite having the electorate pass them via legal referendum. I really don’t understand the thinking.

It reminds me of the fact that the police have no individual duty to defend you or protect you. The clearly don’t have the right not to act to prevent crime occurring openly and notoriously before their eyes. We just don’t give the executive that much leeway, do we?