To: pierrem15
State or Federal ruling?
If it's an amendment to the state constitution, I'm baffled at how it could (on its merits) be ruled unconstitutional. Either way, it will go to the 9th circus clowns of appeal and hopefully end up at the USSC.
14 posted on
03/14/2005 12:20:20 PM PST by
ClintonBeGone
(In politics, sometimes it's OK for even a Wolverine to root for a Buckeye win.)
To: ClintonBeGone
No, it will go to the CA Supreme Court, which is surprisingly conservative.
18 posted on
03/14/2005 12:22:52 PM PST by
Hugin
To: ClintonBeGone
Either way, it will go to the 9th circus clowns of appeal and hopefully end up at the USSC. This ruling seems to be based solely on the California Constitution. Federal courts would actually have no jurisdiction for hearing this case.
49 posted on
03/14/2005 12:40:16 PM PST by
Modernman
("Normally, I don't listen to women, or doctors." - Captain Hero)
To: ClintonBeGone
Its actually a state law. It should been submitted as a state constitutional amendment but that's why it was drafted as it was. No one wanted it to head to the SCOTUS which would have taken the case and invalidated same sex marriage bans across the country. My feeling is that will eventually happen. The elites are not going to let a small matter like voter desires to stand in their way when it comes to equality.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".) 306 posted on
03/14/2005 6:06:17 PM PST by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: ClintonBeGone
I found nothing in the California Constitution mentioning marriage.
368 posted on
03/14/2005 8:20:06 PM PST by
gitmo
(Thanks, Mel. I needed that.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson