Californian’s Will Have Their Say On Supreme Court Justices Who Constitutionally Stray//

Check out these interesting tidbits from the brilliant Beetle Blogger. It looks like we won’t be stuck with activists judges after all. As liberal as some people and elected officials in California are, at least we have a system where the citizens can participate a form of checks and balances. If someone gets out of line, we have the means to eject them from office, and prevent them from being even more destructive.

Automatic Recall of California Justices?

I learned an interesting thing this morning.  Judicial appointments in California are confirmed by the public at the next general election; justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms.  Who is coming up for the end of their 12 year term this time around??

Three California Supreme Court justices will be up for reelection to 12-year terms on the November 2010 ballot:

1. Ron George – led court to invent homosexual “marriage” last year

2. Ming Chin — voted to uphold Prop. 22 last year

3. Carlos Moreno — voted to invent homosexual “marriages” last year

Carlos Moreno was the lone dissenting vote on upholding Proposition 8.  The amount of stretching and wheedling that had to be done in order to muscle his will into the state constitution automatically discredits him and disbars him in my mind.  There is no way he should ever sit as a judge over this state with that kind of willingness to overlook the basic rights of the people.

Ron George is hardly better.

There are some days when I am so glad to be a Californian.  When I look at these other states so helpless against their legislatures and judiciaries…It’s unfathomable the amount of work they have to put out to reorganize a corrupt system.  The California Constitution gives the people power.

That’s something to be grateful for.

—Beetle Blogger

Get ready to vote folks!!!

Another tidbit that you might find interesting…Carlos Moreno, the 1 dissenter who voted to strike down Prop 8, was also on Obama’s short list for potential appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court. The very same list from which he appointed Sotomayor. Not very shocking coming from Obama huh? Sotomayor is right up there  with all of the others who promote liberal ideologies, and hopes to assert her beliefs and opinions ahead of the rule of law when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.

For more info on Judicial Activism {click here}.

Source: Beetle Blogger

Advertisements

CA Supreme Court Opinions//

I’ve updated my post on Tuesday’s Supreme Court Prop 8 decision to include a link to the court’s website where you can view the Justices’ opinions.

Original Post can be found {here}


LDS Church Issues Response to California Supreme Court Decision on Proposition 8//

photo source: beckhamlawoffice.com

photo source: beckhamlawoffice.com

SALT LAKE CITY 26 May 2009 Today’s decision by the California Supreme Court is welcome. The issue the court decided was whether California citizens validly exercised their right to amend their own constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The court has overwhelmingly affirmed their action.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society. These implications range from what our children are taught in schools to individual and collective freedom of religious expression and practice.

Accordingly, the Church stands firmly for what it believes is right for the health and well-being of society as a whole. In doing so, it once again affirms that all of us are children of God, and all deserve to be treated with respect. The Church believes that serious discussion of these issues is not helped when extreme elements on both sides of the debate demonize the other.

I am proud and very grateful to be a member of this Church, where our leaders remind and encourage us to all love and respect each other, and treat each other with kindness, despite our differing opinions.

Source: newsroom.lds.org


California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8//

marriage

The voters, and now the California Supreme Court, have spoken.

Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman. That’s it!!!!!

Today, the California Supreme Court announced their decision to uphold Proposition 8, and the will of the voters, in a 6 to 1 decision!!! Only 1 dissenting vote. Marriage in California is now legally defined in our Constitution as only between 1 man and 1 woman. I totally agree with my blogger friend Pearl, when she said:

I am immensely relieved that this state’s judiciary was inspired to reaffirm the right of the people of California to amend our own Constitution as we see fit.

Society, families and children will benefit from this  preservation of marriage! As for the 18,000 same-sex couples who got married last year during a small window when it was legal, the court has ruled that they will remain valid. I find it interesting though, that these folks think they are married, in a state where our constitution clearly says their marriages aren’t “valid or recognized.” Married or not, homosexual couples retain the same rights under California’s domestic partnership laws,  so hopefully they will learn to be happy with that. They aren’t being deprived of any civil rights like they try to convince everyone they are. I’m just happy that the court didn’t let them hijack real marriage.

The Supreme Court’s website is most likely overloaded, so I haven’t been able to read the justices’ opinions yet. I’ll post more info later! Prop 8 made history today for a 2nd time. I hope that now all of the other states will follow suit…it seems like a lot of them have been willy-nilly passing pro SSM laws lately, but since we know that the nation watches, and often follows, California, hopefully today’s decision will have a positive influence when it comes to preserving marriage in other states.

{p.s.} Pearl, I stole tags from your post! They was awesome! Thanks!!!!


California Supreme Court to rule on Proposition 8 Tuesday//

This just in:

The California Supreme Court announced today that it will rule Tuesday on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that resurrected a ban on same-sex marriage, or in other words, the people defined marriage as only between 1 man and 1 woman.

The ruling, which will be posted at 10 a.m., will also determine whether an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages will continue to be recognized by the state.

The Supreme Court has posted their “Notice of Forthcoming Filing” {here} . Click on the pdf link to see the actual document.

Source: latimesblog.latimes.com, California Supreme Court Website

The Wait Continues for CA’s Supreme Court Prop 8 Decision//

decisionThe CA Supreme Court has less than two weeks remaining to issue its decision regarding the voter’s will to protect marriage as only between 1 man and 1 woman in California. Despite the rumblings about a ruling coming today on the much awaited Prop 8 case, voters, gays and Prop 8 supporters will have to wait until another day. Perhaps we will hear something on Monday, or next Thursday. Click {here} for a link to the Supreme Court’s website and ruling info.

When opinions are expected to file, notices are generally posted the day before. Opinions are normally filed Mondays and Thursdays at 10:00 a.m.



CA Supreme Court May Make Prop 8 Ruling on Thursday//

SFPD Drops Off Barricades In Castro, All Eyes On California Supreme Court

An SF City Hall insider tipped me earlier tonight that the SFPD was dropping off racks of barricades in the Castro in advance of an expected Thursday ruling on Prop 8 from the California Supreme Court. No confirmation at this point, but similar reports are coming in from San Diego. We’ll know around midday when the Court posts its list of rulings for the next day.

VERY RELATED: Thursday will also be the 30th anniversary of the White Night Riots, and Friday is Harvey Milk’s birthday. You have to wonder if the Court is aware of that timing and what it may mean if they’ve decided to rule this week.

The California Supreme Court announces its decisions on Mondays and Thursdays and in most cases will give 24-hour advance notice of the announcement. The deadline for the court’s decision is June 3, 2009.

We will see if this turns out to be true. I’ll be watching the news tomorrow.

Source: via my friend’s facebook page,  blogout.justout.com

Miss CA Being Compared to a Nazi War Criminal// and other Prop 8 news of the day

marriage

Here are a few interesting tidbits from today’s Proposition 8 and Marriage news.

:::::Additional Lawsuit Filed Against Prop 8

A new lawsuit has been filed claiming that Prop 8 violates the Federal Constitution. Hang in there states-rights. This is not the federal scandal that the plaintiffs are making it out to be.  {Click here to read article}

:::::Alliance Defense Fund Attorneys to Defend Prop 8 and the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act)

The Christian Post reports:

A federal court has granted attorneys with a Christian legal firm a motion to intervene in a lawsuit that challenges Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, filed the order granting the motion on Wednesday. Alliance Defense Fund attorneys will intervene on behalf of ProtectMarriage.com, the main proponents of Proposition 8 – California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

“The people of California want marriage to remain as the union between one man and one woman; they made their voice clear last November at the polls,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum in a statement released Friday. “Yet this lawsuit begs the court to nullify the voices of more than 7 million California voters, as well as put an end to the federal law on marriage.”

{Click here to read entire article}

:::::Media Blunders in Covering California’s Prop 8

Six months ago, California voters passed Proposition 8, denying legal recognition to same gender marriages.  Petitions are now being circulated to put the issue back to the voters in June 2010.

Before venturing into this thorny thicket again, the media should realize what a poor job it did in covering the fundraising for Prop 8.

The reporting blunders include gross inaccuracies and one where the media did not recognize a good story right before their eyes.

All the blunders could have been avoided had news organizations more fully understood the campaign finance reporting laws of California and/or been more diligent in examining the online campaign finance records filed with the California Secretary of State.

{Click here to read the entire article} I love it that someone is pointing out what a crappy job the media did.

:::::Character Assassins Gunning for Miss California, Supporters Say

“They’re really going after her,” Focus on the Family President Jim Daley said of Prejean, whose critics have gone so far as to compare her to a Nazi war criminal.

“She’s being attacked for her opinion; she’s getting creamed for just giving her perspective. It’s just another example of the intolerant left….

{Click here to read more}

California Supreme Set to Reject Gay Stance on Prop 8//

constitutiondaypic1

Thanks for keeping my blog warm everyone!!!! Moving is a total fiasco. Thankfully I’m not a pack-rat and I have no problem throwing things away. We’re finally in the new house, but unpacking is another story. The internet got hooked up today and I’m anxious to see what I’ve been missing on the marriage front this past week.

This was the first bit on info I came across. The liberal Washington Post is of course trying to put their slant on the the Prop 8 issue and the pending Supreme Court ruling, likely in favor of Prop 8, but if you look past the slant and bias, you’ll see that although they are trying to give gays hope that they can take over marriage and whatever else they feel like, we as citizens still ultimately have the power. We can continue to affect the outcomes of the ballot measures and express our wants and needs to our representatives. And we can still expect the CA Supreme Court to respect our wishes, and not trample on our rights.

Here are some highlights from the article:

It is ordinarily the better part of wisdom not to predict court decisions on the basis of questions asked by judges at oral argument. But the California Supreme Court left little doubt that it would reject the contention of gay rights advocates that it should ignore the results of the ballot initiative that, in effect, reversed the same court’s opinion recognizing same-sex marriages.

Yet, as difficult as the likely outcome of the case will be for those of us who support gay marriage, the court’s rationale will almost certainly strengthen a fundamental tenet of the progressive movement: the right of ordinary citizens to maintain authority over their state constitutions.

That means US… marriage supporters and defenders. Should gay marriage supporters ever get an initiative of  their own on the ballot, we can always vote again, and again, and have our voices heard in favor of real marriage, again!!! As long as we stand together and stay focused on what we want, and get out there and vote, they won’t be able to reverse this.

Early 20th-century progressives had a deep distrust of state judicial authority for the very good reason that many decisions were antithetical to a more just and humane society. The relative ease with which Californians — and residents of other states — can amend their state constitutions owes much to the “direct democracy” reforms led by progressives.

When Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive candidate for president in 1912, proposed the recall of state court decisions to enable “the people themselves” to decide constitutional issues, he was responding to our democracy’s inherent tension between judicial authority and democratic legitimacy. And when Larry Kramer, the preeminent progressive scholar of “popular constitutionalism,” criticized William Rehnquist’s Supreme Court, he noted, “The Supreme Court is not the highest authority in the land on constitutional law. We are.

The author writes:

The idea that judicial authority is not ultimate constitutional authority can be particularly unsettling when citizens choose to amend their state constitutions to limit rather than expand rights.

That’s too bad. We, the majority, have just as much right to our vote as the gay minority. Everyone gets one vote!!!!! Just because they don’t like how we voted, does not make our votes any less valid, although they are trying to make it seem that way because they don’t like the outcome. Majority rules in our State Constitution.

The methods by which voters may amend state constitutions, although varying from state to state, are far more flexible than the process by which the U.S. Constitution may be amended. A decision of the U.S. Supreme Court may be “overturned” by constitutional amendment, but that event is rare. It has happened only four times in our nation’s history, and once, it required a civil war. In contrast, in the past decade, citizens in more than two dozen states have amended their constitutions through popular vote to reverse or forestall favorable consideration of gay marriage claims.

This is a nice sentiment, but I’m all for state’s rights! People should have control over their government, not the government having control over the people. I think that the legislators need to take some history refresher courses. The citizens of California are the ultimate constitutional authority, not the court and not the legislators.

Check back for more marriage info this weekend. Thanks for reading!!!


Prop 8’s Day In Court// justices skeptically grilled lawyers seeking to overturn the state’s ban on gay marriage…

Shannon Minter, standing, speaks to the California Supreme Court in San Francisco, Thursday, March 5, 2009 on the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved Proposition 8 that bans gay unions. The court will decide whether to uphold the same-sex marriage ban and whether same-sex couple marriages will remain valid. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, pool)

Shannon Minter, standing, speaks to the California Supreme Court in San Francisco, Thursday, March 5, 2009 on the constitutionality of the state's voter-approved Proposition 8 that bans gay unions. The court will decide whether to uphold the same-sex marriage ban and whether same-sex couple marriages will remain valid. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, pool)

California Supreme Court Justices heard arguments today from both sides on the validity of Proposition 8.

Kenneth Starr was amazing today, representing the Yes on 8 campaign in front of the Supreme Court! The definition of marriage as only between 1 man and 1 woman may remain in tack! Supreme Court Justices may actually remember they don’t have authority to dictate voter’s rights. Here’s the scoop from today’s Prop 8 Supreme Court oral arguments. Things are looking good so far!!!

“What I am picking up from the oral arguments is that this court should willy-nilly disregard the will of the people,” said Kennard, who just 10 months ago voted that prohibiting same-sex marriages violated the civil rights of gays. “The people established the constitution; as judges, our power is very limited.”

According to the SF Associated Press, thousands of demonstrators showed up to chant and wave signs outside of the CA Supreme Court building today, as the Justices geared up to hear and question oral arguments from parties on both sides of the gay marriage ban issue.

Attorney’s for gay couples and supporters of SSM argued that gay civil rights are being violated and tried to,

persuade the California Supreme Court that the public’s right to change the constitution doesn’t extend to depriving an unpopular minority of the right to wed.

But the court’s seven justices indicated a wariness to override what Associate Justice Joyce Kennard called the people’s “very, very broad, well-wrought” authority to amend the state’s governing framework at the ballot box.

Couples who married during the short 4 1/2 month period in which the ban on SSM was lifted, were disheartened by the tone of the hearing and not very hopeful that the justices would strike down the ban that voters put in place with a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 last November.

Bad news for gay couples, but amazing news for those of us who voted Yes on Prop 8 and want to see the traditional definition of marriage preserved, as was the entire reason for the ballot initiative in the first place.

Gay rights advocates argued the proposition is such a sweeping change to the constitution’s equal protection clause that it was a constitutional revision, not just an amendment. A revision requires legislative approval before it lands on the ballot.

Chief Justice Ronald George, who also ruled last year to strike down a pair of laws that limited marriage to a man and a woman, echoed Kennard’s qualms about denying voters their voice.

The Supreme Court acknowledged today that the voters were well withing their rights to vote to amend their state constitution and place a ban on gay marriage. It has happened hundreds of times before, 500 times to be exact, compared with just 27 amendments to the United States Constitution. Chief Justice Ronald George noted that it is up to the Legislature and the voters to make the amendment process more difficult, not the job of the court.

“It seems what you are saying is, it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution,” George told Raymond Marshall, an attorney representing the NAACP and other civil rights groups trying to overturn the ban. “Maybe the solution has to be a political one.”

Too easy or not, the amendment, revision, or whatever, is already done, and if some think it’s too easy to amended our state constitution, then that is an issue to be addressed outside of the court and  should not be related to the Constitutionality of Prop 8.

Minutes into Thursday’s proceedings, the justices peppered a lawyer representing unwed same sex couples with tough questions over how the 14 words of Proposition 8 represent a denial of fundamental rights when same-sex couples still have the legal benefits of marriage through domestic partnerships.

“Is it your argument in this proceeding that the passage of Proposition 8 also took away in addition to the label of marriage, the core of substantive rights of marriage this court outlined in its decision last year?” asked Kennard.

Supporters of the gay marriage ban, represented by former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr, said it would be a reversal of the Supreme Court’s own precedents for the court to overturn the results of a fair election.

“Under our theory the people are sovereign and they can do very unwise things that tug at the equality principle,” Starr said.

He also argued that California voters have an “inalienable right” to amend the constitution and that taking away rights through the initiative process is not a revision that alters the structure of government.

The question about what will happen to the 18,000 same-sex marriages that were preformed before the passage of Prop 8 still stands. Many of the justices appeared skeptical that Prop 8 could be applied retroactively. However, from my standpoint, just because the marriages were legal when they were performed, if the court upholds Prop 8, and the Constitution of California defines marriage as only marriages between one man and one woman are valid and recognized in CA, then it looks like even if SS marriages may remain legal, they won’t be recognized by the state. That is what the amendment says.

The justices have 90 days to issue a ruling.

The crowd outside the court grew steadily throughout the hearing, with many watching the proceedings on a giant television screen erected across the street in front of City Hall. Demonstrators were evenly split over the gay marriage issue and took turns drowning out each others chants after the hearing.

Visit my friend Beetle Blogger for her personal account of the hearing today. She also posted the video of the hearing if you want to watch that. Check out her post, she’s got the inside scoop.

Pearl Diver also has a great write-up of today’s events!