Posted on 08/12/2010 7:10:51 PM PDT by kristinn
“How could the judge overturn Proposition 8 without also overturning the Federal Defense of Marriage Act?”
Because only Prop 8 was before him. If DOMA had been brought before him with the same sorry defense team, he probably would have overturned it, too. In fact, there’s a Massachusetts case underway right now to overturn DOMA the same way.
“His opinion only overturned Proposition 8. So does federal marriage law still prevail in the rest of the U.S. except for California?”
It does for now. If this decision is upheld by the SCOTUS, it will effectively wipe out all similar state laws across the nation. The defense lawyers did a spectacularly bad job on this case. It may work in their favor if the 9th Circuit declines to grant them standing to pursue an appeal. In such a case it would still only affect California.
“The militant homosexuals cherry-picked an avowed sodomite to preside over the case.”
Aren’t these cases randomly assigned to judges?
“How could the judge overturn Proposition 8 without also overturning the Federal Defense of Marriage Act? “
That is probably the end result should the case be appealed all the way up. The US Supreme Court could possibly find the lower court’s ruling as correct, on the grounds that the DOMA itself is unconstitutional. Sad, but lawyers and judges can make evil things happen.
Our country is in the toilet. :(:(:(
“Does a Proposition on a ballot amend existing law?”
Prop 8 was a constitutional amendment, legally on the ballot and legally passed.
There has to be some process to remove this homo judge from office. I guarantee a judge can be removed for mental incompetence. What about AIDS dementia?
The California Constitution allows the legislature to propose ballot measures and constitutional amendments, but it also allows the people to directly circumvent obstructive legislatures, by allowing them to put statutes and Constitutional amendments directly on the ballot as long as a certain number of signatures equal to a specific percentage of the voters in the last general election is obtained. This is how Prop 22 was put on the statute books in California back in the year 2000. It passed by over 60% of the vote.
The legislature of California is ultra-progressive communist by nearly 2/3 margins in both houses and would never pass this kind of law. So the courts made the law for them by striking prop. 22 down as unconstitutional. So no, the legislature will not defend the people's wishes and neither will the Executive branch. The attorney general and governor of California have often tried to get popular referenda they didn't like struck down in court even though they are obligated by their job to defend them. Gray Davis for instance scuttled the Prop.187 lawsuit and Att.Gen Jerry Brown, for instance, refused to defend Prop.8 in Court, as did the Governor. Thus leaving the defense solely up to pro marriage interest groups.
If legislation is a Constitutional Amendment does it have to be worded in such a way or labeled as a Constitutional Amendment to do so?
As to your questions, yes, in California a proposition must specifically be filed and labeled as either a statute or a Constitutional Amendment. So, the supporters of prop.22 took the exact same legislation and submitted the text of prop.22 as a Constitutional Amendment which became known as Prop.8. O do not believe amendments ratified by popular amendment cannot be repealed by the legislature without an appeal to the people, but I may be mistaken on that. The Supreme Court of California was scared to strike down a ratified Constitutional Amendment as unconstitutional because of the frightening legal implications of such a decision...(and judges can be recalled in California). So the homosexual lobby went shopping for a gay judge in a liberal venue to strike down the amendment in a Federal Court.
Can a state proposition/constitutional amendment amend a federal statute? (wasn’t the judges decision on the grounds of violation equal protection under the US Constitution)
Federal Courts can only take a case if there is a legal question being sued on Federal grounds, which means that the case decision was going to pertain to federal law from the get go. No, California can't do anything outside of Congress to amend federal law except call for a Constitutional Convention or interpret federal law it in their state courts and hope that later federal courts agree with them on appeal. However, the judge's reasoning in this case was activist judging at work.
If we are a nation that believes in the rule of law would not the judges decision be correct even if widely unpopular)?
The judge just proclaimed himself to be above the law when he legislated his own private personal views from the bench. He is supposed to referee the law not make it up. He completely reinterpreted the Equal Protection Clause in a radical way, which if upheld will have serious reprecussions...many probably unintended. The Equal Protection Clause actually means that the law has to be enforced equally upon everyone, (which Prop 8 did), but he interpreted it to mean that the US Government can engage in social engineering projects to ensure some ever changing definition of "equality." There is no limit to federal power with that kind of logic. This decision undermines the rule of law.
Judge Vaughn is known as a conservative judge and I read some where considered unorthodox also.
The judge is also gay...so geee I wonder if that conflict of interest had any bearing on his decision.
I don’t know how the assignment was made in this case, but even if assignment was random there are ways around that. You simply pick a court on which most of the judges are likely to agree with your case in a venue that is in your favor. That way the odds of getting a biased judge are higher. Choosing a Federal court in San Francisco for striking down marriage would be a perfect venue to try this.
Not in California anymore, it doesn't. The judges reasoning for striking down prop.8 also means that DOMA is null and void in California too. Once it gets to the 9th circuit, it will apply to the whole of the West. When it gets to SCOTUS it could strike down marriage altogether across the nation. The only way to overturn that kind of decision would be a Federal Constitutional amendment. This decision authorizes gay unions and then effectively means that no state or even the US government has the right to define marriage by the traditional meaning without a US Constitutional amendment. It is a coup d'etat for the gay rights movement.
How could the judge overturn Proposition 8 without also overturning the Federal Defense of Marriage Act? His opinion only overturned Proposition 8. So does federal marriage law still prevail in the rest of the U.S. except for California?
Yes, federal district courts rulings only apply to their jurisdictions. However, if the 9th Circuit agrees with the district court on appeal, then DOMA will effectively be struck down in California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Alaska, Hawaii, and Nevada. Then its on to SCOTUS which could do the same for the whole nation..
Which is why the best thing may be to NOT appeal to the 9th Circuit. Judge Walker’s decision would affect California only. If the 9th gets it, and affirms, it would affect the entire 9th Circuit.
Thanks for the explanations. I do appreciate them. As I said I am not a lawyer and also not a resident of California. Just trying to learn how things work.
Texas is a bit different, guess all states do things a bit different from each other. It is interesting just trying to understand the mechanics of how all this works or how it should work.
Texas has elected judges/justices also ... putting a politician in office is the same any where I guess. His/her agenda is always forefront.
Regardless of whether this case is appealed, it WILL be used by the homo-nazis as a sledge hammer to further shatter any arguments for real marriage in court cases in progress. Not winning it in the long run would definitely result in 50-state perverted “marriage” in short order.
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.