The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: TheSarge on November 20, 2008, 05:58:23 AM
-
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California's highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules.
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision.
All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081119/D94I8U1G3.html
-
Yep. Liberalism 101: subvert the democratic will of the people by illegally using the oligarchy of the court.
-
Yep. Liberalism 101: subvert the democratic will of the people by illegally using the oligarchy of the court.
Liberalism is offensive. It should be banned. :fuelfire:
-
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - California's highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules.
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision.
All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081119/D94I8U1G3.html
I'd really like to see these groups point to the "rights" that have been abridged.
-
That would be the 2nd amendment, oh wait, that was done in by the "will of the people".
-
Excuse my stupidity, but wasn't this proposition presented to the voters as a Constitutional Amendment, specifically to take the issue beyond the reach of the California Supreme Court???
doc
-
Excuse my stupidity, but wasn't this proposition presented to the voters as a Constitutional Amendment, specifically to take the issue beyond the reach of the California Supreme Court???
doc
Yes it was. But somehow the Calif. Supremes are saying that the will of the majority of the people to amend their constitution as they are legally entitled to do means squat.
Chalk another win up for the Gay KK
-
I think the court is looking into the semantics of the whole thing. The gayists are saying that Prop 8 is a "Revision" to the constitution, not an "Amendment" , therefore the majority vote is is irrelevant and the ban is unconstitutional.
-
I think the court is looking into the semantics of the whole thing. The gayists are saying that Prop 8 is a "Revision" to the constitution, not an "Amendment" , therefore the majority vote is is irrelevant and the ban is unconstitutional.
whats the difference ?
my English degree says there is none.
-
whats the difference ?
my English degree says there is none.
..that would be the problem....lost in the translation from liberalese.
-
whats the difference ?
my English degree says there is none.
Their case is based on legalese wording about what constitutes and amendment, versus a revision, and whether the law was followed.
they'll keep protesting and filing suits until people get tired and just give in.
-
Their case is based on legalese wording about what constitutes and amendment, versus a revision, and whether the law was followed.
they'll keep protesting and filing suits until people get tired and just give in.
probably. just pushes it closer to a national constitution amendment/revision/change that states the obvious.
-
Their case is based on legalese wording about what constitutes and amendment, versus a revision, and whether the law was followed.
they'll keep protesting and filing suits until people get tired and take baseball bats to the queers.
fixed :evillaugh:
-
Excuse my stupidity, but wasn't this proposition presented to the voters as a Constitutional Amendment, specifically to take the issue beyond the reach of the California Supreme Court???
doc
Worse -- the voters were TOLD by the Court that the reason all the prior propositions were void is because the prior ones did not amend the California Constitution. They pretty much directed California to do exactly what they did with Prop 8.
The Court can't now go back and say "when we told you to do that, we didn't think you WOULD!" They would look really stupid and one thing jurists HATE is looking stupid. They are guaranteed their position for life, so the only thing they have is their reputations.
-
Worse -- the voters were TOLD by the Court that the reason all the prior propositions were void is because the prior ones did not amend the California Constitution. They pretty much directed California to do exactly what they did with Prop 8.
The Court can't now go back and say "when we told you to do that, we didn't think you WOULD!" They would look really stupid and one thing jurists HATE is looking stupid. They are guaranteed their position for life, so the only thing they have is their reputations.
Based upon my rather biased opinion, the California Supreme Court seems to have made a career out of looking "stupid" (at least to the rest of us........)
doc
-
Excuse my stupidity, but wasn't this proposition presented to the voters as a Constitutional Amendment, specifically to take the issue beyond the reach of the California Supreme Court???
doc
Yes - but it seems that California voted 'wrong' - So I guess it doesn't count, and the court can intervene. I don't think I have ever seen anything go more Orwellian in my life than the way Prop 8 aftermath is being handled.
-
Yes - but it seems that California voted 'wrong' - So I guess it doesn't count, and the court can intervene. I don't think I have ever seen anything go more Orwellian in my life than the way Prop 8 aftermath is being handled.
You got that right. If the SC of Sodom agrees to overturn the vote....I don't think it will be taken lightly. This time.