Welcome to The Conservative Cave©!Join in the discussion! Click HERE to register.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yep. Liberalism 101: subvert the democratic will of the people by illegally using the oligarchy of the court.
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
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
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.
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 take baseball bats to the queers.
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.
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.