 
|
Posted on 11/11/2008 6:22:29 PM PST by Ol' Sparky
The California Supreme Court's surprising announcement that it will quickly review the legality of Proposition 8, banning gay marriage, has prompted growing speculation that the four judges who found a right to gay marriage in the state Constitution in a May ruling will quickly throw Prop. 8 out. If that happens, watch out for a "barn-burner of an election -- the biggest thing this state has ever seen," says recall election guru Ted Costa.
Costa says he's already been contacted by some of the folks who would seek to recall Ronald George, Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno if Prop. 8 is scrapped. He thinks it's premature and risky because talk of a recall "would just (bleep) off the judges."
Costa also doesn't sound like he's too thrilled about such a recall, saying it wouldn't be "healthy." Citing all the financial turmoil in California, he said, "If someone's going to do some recalling, that should be the focus."
But Costa sounds certain such a recall would happen and agreed that it would be no problem at all for gay marriage opponents to quickly gather the signatures of 12 percent of the electorate to force a recall election targeting George, Kennard, Werdegar and Moreno. He said supporters of Prop. 8 such as the Knights of Columbus, the Mormon Church and other traditional religious groups all had "massive" resources to bring to bear.
He doesn't think the state Supreme Court will overturn Prop. 8. "I gotta believe they'll uphold the initiative process." But if the four justices do, Costa says expect an amazing spectacle.
I agree. I think literally hundreds of millions of dollars would be spent on the recall. Gay marriage opponents see Prop. 8 as akin to a last stand preventing a global movement toward acceptance of gay marriage and will go all out. Gay marriage supporters, for their part, will no longer accept incremental progress or "civil unions."
At least it would be good for the California economy.
The whole post actually cracked me up....
The fact that those who write that type of stuff....don't see their own bias..is amazing.
“No, that’s not what I meant. By definition, an amendment is a ‘revision’. You need to explain your initial comment further.”
From what I gather there are two ways to change the CA Constitution, a revision and an amendment.
A revision goes to the basic document and makes sweeping changes and must,by law, be started in the legislature with a supermajority,etc.
An amendment is a minor change and can be done with a proposition.
The gays are arguing that they have a basic right to marriage, so Prop. 8 needed to go through the revision process, not the proposition (amendment) process.
But I have read here that they already used that argument before Prop. 8 was put on the ballot and lost in the courts.
The vote of the people used to count.
I guess those days are over.
Hello, living, breathing document..... once known as the Constitution.
They just let us vote to try to make us feel a part of the process, but if it doesn’t turn out the way they want, we must be “corrected”. Know all about. Happens all the time in Washington State.
Musket and Pitchfork time..I would imagine.
It would be the height of arrogance if the judges were to rush to overturn a legally passed Constitutional amendment. A recall would be totally justified in that case. In fact, it would be the only reasonable thing to do under the circumstances.
Listen Frantzie, I am not a Mormon (infact I very much disagree with Mormon theological beliefs, IMO they are anti-Biblical) that is not to say that I have anything against any Mormon, in fact I don’t.
I applaud them in their efforts to support traditional marriage! I can ally with them, all the while we (mutually) disagree on Religious beliefs (but we are America, and we are allowe to do that per the 1st, and God’s Law),
Anyhow, I don’t dislike Mr. Mitt Romney becuase of his “Mormon Beliefs”..I dislike him because of HIS LIBERALISM (As Gov of Mass).
The fix is in.
It would explain why the CA SC decided to redefine marriage before the election. They wanted to be sure the new “right” was in existence before it could be voted on. This would also explain why they declined to hold off on enacting the new “right” until after the election. This allows proponents of the new “right” to claim this “right” was being taken away. This is a much stronger legal argument, or perhaps just more persuasive, than that of denying the creation of a new “right”.
Although the same arguments failed in Oregon and elsewhere, the proponents of redefining marriage will make the argument that a fundamental right cannot be taken away by an ammendment to the constitution. The CA SC has most certainly, and inexplicably, given them the best shot at it. And, of course, the CA SC is the court which will be making the call.
Considering Prop 8 is a repudiation of the CA SC’s infamous ruling, the SC should recuse itself from this case. :-)
< /tinfoil >
Of course, everyone in California has the exact same rights regarding marriage. Both before and after the infamous CA SC ruling, and before and after the passage of Prop 8.
We recalled Chief Justice Rose Bird and her merry band in the 80s they refused to enforce the death penalty. We can throw the bums out again!
We recalled Chief Justice Rose Bird and her merry band in the 80s they refused to enforce the death penalty. We can throw the bums out again!
And that has worked out well......................
|
|
I got yer slogan fer ya -
George, Kennard, Werdegar, and Moreno - They’ve given you the shaft, now it’s your turn - Give ‘em all the BIRD!!!
Start the Recall at the top, with that ultra-leftist pretender of a governor, and work your way down through the judges and the legislature.
Kick them ALL out! Let the people take back the power!
Mitt Romney's PAC donated $10,000 in support of Proposition 8. Is that pushing a liberal agenda? Is that being Ted Kennedy's useful idiot?
Earthquake!
Well I’m about ready for a Constitutional crisis. Anything that would force Americans to take a long hard look at what passes for government these days would be helpful.
Don’t make me start posting the videos and transcripts of Mitt pushing abortion and the rest of the liberal agenda again. There are hundreds of them. Direct from the horse’s mouth so to speak. He’s one sick dude.
Yeah, I know. He’s a changed man. Whatever. His mama was an abortionist and so was he. She made him do it. The libs made him do it. He had to do it to get elected. Looks like he’s said and done anything to get elected in the past and he’d say and do anything to get elected again. Yeah, I think I’ll trust a lying abortionist. Not.
And he’s still pushing his socialized health care plan even as it’s bankrupting Massachusetts. No thanks. He’s a liberal in the flesh, regardless of the suit he’s wearing today.
From this other thread at...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2130357/posts
... a useful litmus test for Romney’s legislative record...
Beliefnet recently surveyed its readership about who they voted for and why. 1,135 people who described themselves as “evangelical or Born Again” filled out the survey. (Full survey here)
Let’s start with the similarities between Obama’s evangelicals and McCain’s.
They’re both comparably religiously active.
* 87.7% of Obama evangelicals pray every day vs. 92.7 % for McCain’s.
* 72% of Obama evangelicals attend church weekly or more vs.75.7% % among McCain evangelicals.
* Not surprisingly, almost no evangelicals—either McCain or Obama supporters-—agreed with the statement that the bible is “Not God’s word, nor is it divinely inspired.”
But there are some stark differences:
They Emphasize Completely Different Values Issues. Obama’s evangelicals ranked their priorities like this:
* The economy
* Iraq war
* Reducing poverty
* Character
* The environment
* Cleaning up government
* Access to health care
* The Vice presidential selection
* Gay marriage
* Abortion
* Fighting Islamic radicalism
* Illegal immigration
* The candidate’s experience
McCain Evangelicals listed priorities in a very different order:
* Abortion
* Character
* Cleaning up government
* Fighting Islamic radicalism
* Gay marriage
* The economy
* Experience
* Iraq war
* Illegal immigration
* Access to health care
* Running mates
* Reducing poverty
* The environment
That’s great to hear. Had a friend that used to live in Mission Veijo (sp) but he moved back here to MO. couldn’t stand it any longer.
I don’t know why you said ‘hold on to my horses’ other than you are a true warrior and therefore took offense to my comment that ‘it’s about time someone stood up’. Very sorry if I offended you. Remember, the midwest is quite the distance and our news must be ‘filtered’ because we never see where anyone is ever doing anything (except the freaks).
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.