|Prop 8Page 52 of 52 (12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52)|
|Re: #1271 et. al. - |
Just as it may be true that Judge Vaughn Walker is strongly biased in favor of it because he's a practicing homosexual himself.
That right there is proof that the Supreme Court didn't care about the law. Had they done so, they should have remanded all the way back to the District Court to have a judge who didn't have a conflict of interest hear the case.
In fact, we've had other decisions from this Court which are clearly erroneous. The DNA ruling violates the "plain sight" exception to the Fourth Amendment*, and the use of silence against a suspect/defendant vs. his Fifth Amendment right of self incrimination, where even the Miranda (v. Arizona) Warning calls it a "right to remain silent." Silence is no longer silence: The currently seated Supreme Court is out of its mind.
* - I also disagree with this on the grounds that it allows "fishing expeditions without probable cause" when DNA is compared against a general database for identifying additional crimes for which the person was not even a suspect. It's one thing to compare DNA (pursuant to a warrant) against a specific sample for which the person is a suspect, but J. Scalia's dissent is the correct legal conclusion.
Posted: 6/27/2013 3:38:49 PM
|"The Supreme Court, with Justices who were mostly appointed by Republicans, disagree with you guys. Prop 8 has been defeated once and for all."|
Skooch - You are talking from the wrong orifice, if you catch my drift. The Supreme Court did not say anything about Prop 8 being defeated.
If anything, they kicked the can down the road, in a weak sisterly fashion, to be argued and voted and sued and kicked around some more, for any state that chooses to be involved.
Posted: 6/27/2013 8:02:16 PM
|California first authorized the initiative about a hundred years ago, in 1911. Today, it's one of twenty-six states that have it. It was one of the progressives' reforms, like "sunshine acts," meant to give the people a direct say in lawmaking, by giving them a way to bypass their elected legislators and their dealmaking in smoke-filled rooms.|
What the majority did in Hollingsworth goes far beyond same-sex marriage. In order to avoid having to decide the merits of Prop. 8, Chief Justice Roberts decided the issue on procedural grounds by ruling that the proponents of the proposition lacked standing to appeal Judge Walker's ruling against it in federal court. Roberts' decision tears a giant hole in the initiative process, and the damage extends all over the country.
In an earlier case, the California Supreme Court had warned about this. It noted that “if the very officials the initiative process seeks to circumvent are the only parties who can defend an enacted initiative when it is challenged . . . this de facto veto will erode one of the cornerstones of the State’s governmental structure.”
The California court added that “in light of the frequency with which initiatives’ opponents resort to litigation” (more than one-third of the initiatives approved in Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington between 1900 and 2008 were challenged in court) “the impact of that veto could be substantial.”
Two can play at this game. Conservative Republican governors--and there are quite a few of them--will now be able to use the very same tactics to nullify initiatives that liberals have voted into law. They can refuse to defend or enforce an initiative like that, let its opponents find a sympathetic federal judge who will invalidate it, and when the initiative's liberal proponents try to appeal the ruling against it in federal court, they may not have the standing needed to do it. If and when that starts happening, we will see if the people who are so pleased with Hollingsworth are still smiling.
I saw a solution suggested that makes some sense. It was for this or another state's voters to design a mechanism that would allow the proponents of initiatives to defend them in court when elected officials refused to. The voters would then propose this mechanism as an initiative itself. The person who suggested this thought that if an initiative like this passed, elected officials would be very leery about trying to block it. I agree.
Posted: 6/27/2013 11:13:22 PM
|Skooch - You're right, there's nothing I can do about a Supreme Court decision, or non-decision.|
I did shift some funds into Johnson & Johnson, the makers of K-Y products. Seems like a solid "forward-thinking" kind of investment, don't you agree?
Posted: 6/28/2013 4:31:42 PM
|Another view :|
"JP Morgan's man in the White House: Barack Obama's legacy of ashes
"At one time, it seems decades ago now, the general thinking in the USA was that President Barack Obama would jolt the American political system into actually doing something beneficial for its citizens rather than spying on them, building F-35 aircraft, upgrading nuclear weapons, spending trillions of dollars (US) on national security, cutting unemployment benefits/food stamps, fomenting war with Iran, Syria, China and Russia; and dragging out the war in Afghanistan.
It is a damn shame!! Why? Why?
Sadly, Barack Obama's legacy will be one of ashes. The destruction of America's social fabric; the implementation of a surveillance corporate-state; assassination and negation of Habeas; and a perpetual state of emergency/war economy will come to dominate the historical narrative on the Obama presidency. President Obama will also go down in US history as the American President who paved the way for the financial industry to dismantle Social Security. With the Executive Powers he has accrued and newly created, future American President's will, by fiat, be able to sell off national park lands and other US assets, even the nation's artwork: citizens of Detroit, Michigan and Greece, Eurozone, are undergoing the pillaging now (see below Greece Memo, Detroit Creditors)."
Posted: 6/29/2013 9:10:00 PM
|Skooch - My apologies are in order. I posted my message on the wrong thread.|
52 (12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52)