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

Federal Lawsuit Filed Against Prop 8//

citizenship

Bush vs. Gore attorneys join forces against Prop 8.

Lawyers David Boies and Theodore B. Olson were on the opposite sides of a case that determined a presidency. Now they’ve joined forces to fight against traditional marriage in federal court and are representing two same-sex couples.

Boies, who represented Al Gore in the 2000 Florida vote-recount case, has teamed up with Olson, who represented the ultimately victorious George W. Bush.

In addition to his efforts for Gore, Boies is best known for representing the U.S. government in the late 1990s in its anti-trust case against Microsoft.Olson was the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, serving from June 2001 to July 2004.

They’ve filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging Proposition 8, California’s ban on gay marriage.

In addition to asking that Proposition 8 be declared unconstitutional, the lawyers are also seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the ban.

“Mr. Olson and I are from different ends of the political spectrum, but we are fighting this case together because Proposition 8 clearly and fundamentally violates the freedoms guaranteed to all of us by the Constitution,” Boies said in announcing thesuit.

The lawyers argue, among other things, that Proposition 8 denies the couple the right to marry and violates the equal-protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all people within their jurisdictions.

Chairm, one of The Opine Editorials’ brilliant bloggers, summed up David and Ted’s arguments from the news conference in which they announced their partnership in the fight for SSM in federal court.

These two lawyers who hope to take their case to the US Supreme Court
appeared on Hardball the other day. They want to use the CA marriage
amendment as the excuse to impose SSM across the country.

Below is a rough transcript. Note that their arguments have not
evolved one iota
since the pro-SSM side went to court in Hawaii back
in 1993. Here are some quick points they voiced.

1. It is said that the man-woman basis of marriage law discriminates
“purely” on sexual orientation. A new term is coined: “same-sex
individuals”.

2. It is said that marriage is the right of an individual to marry the
person of choice.

3. Marrige is called a fundamental human right — not merely a
constitutional right — and that race and sexual orientation are
closely analogous.

4. The claim is that the marriage amendment is just about the word;
but the complaint they make goes much farther than that.

5. The complaint refers to an individual’s equality, but here the
lawyers talk of equating different types of relationships.

6. A new attempt at analogy is made: citizens who pass the citizenship
test being denied the use of the word citizen.

7. The complaint is  the man-woman basis of marriage exists because
“same-sex indivduals” are unpopular and because the majority doesn’t
like what “same-sex indivduals” do in their relationships. They did
not once refer to sexual behavior.

8. They point to the example of Brown v. Board of Education — (an
activist decision that was poorly reasoned even if it came to a just
conclusion) and linked it to the Civil Rights Act which they said
would never have happened if not for the Supreme Court’s leadership.

Watch the 5 minute video and try not to yell at your monitor. They
can’t hear you. They can’t hear common sense either.

Cheerio,
Chairm

You can see these attorneys on MSNBC’s Hardball at the link {here}

Source: news.muckety.com

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!!!!


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.



California Supreme Court to Hear Gay Marriage Cases on March 5th//

In CA, we know our tax $$$ go down the drain, but will our votes?? The Supreme Court is set to decide. . .

In CA, we know our tax $$$ go down the drain, but will our votes?? The Supreme Court is set to decide. . .

The California Supreme Court will hear the legal showdown over gay marriage on March 5, ensuring a decision on the future of same-sex nuptials across the state will arrive before summer.

The law suit arguing arguing that the Prop 8 ballot initiative that passed in the November election is invalid and should be struck down, was brought on by civil rights groups and San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties.

In a statement released Tuesday, the high court set three hours of arguments for its calendar in San Francisco, setting the stage for the justices to consider a series of legal challenges to voter-approved Proposition 8.

The various lawsuits argue that the ballot measure was an improper method of amending the California constitution, and deprives same-sex couples of the right to marry established in the May 2008 Supreme Court ruling.

The California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last year, and will have 90-days from March 5th in which to make a ruling on the legality of Prop 8, as well as the fate of thousands of same-sex couples who married before voters approved the measure.
Continue reading here…

Judicial Activism Continued// reminder to all californians, the supreme court works for us

Judicial

Activism

“Judicial activism” describes an approach where judges impose their own policy preferences rather than interpret the law as written.  When judges act in this manner, they usurp the role of the legislators, whom the citizens elect to represent them in deciding disputed, difficult policy issues.  Thus, judicial activism undermines the very basis of our representative democracy. [Government 101 folks! Think back to the lesson on the roles of the 3 branches of government, yep. . . that’s the one]

The chief modern example of judicial activism is Roe v. Wade, where seven members of the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion that was nowhere found in the Constitution. [ hmm. . . neither is a right to homosexual marriage] Justice Byron White, who dissented in the case, said that the majority of the Court had engaged, “not in constitutional interpretation, but in the unrestrained imposition of its own, extra-constitutional value preferences.” There are examples of judicial activism in other areas of the law as well.

The Family Research Council promotes public education about the danger of judicial activism and calls for the return of a judiciary with more limited powers, according to the design of our nation’s Founders, so that the American people can once again govern themselves on the most important issues of our day. [Californians voting yes on Proposition 8 is an example of the American people governing themselves. This needs to be upheld and supported].

I wanted to do a little post with some info about jucidial activism. I’m always fascinated my people thinking that they can over step their bounds, and in the process, step on the rights of others. Maybe it’s been the 3- year-long legal battle with my husband’s crazy ex; she’s always trying to thwart his parental and legal rights, that coupled with my Political Science degree and the many lectures I heard on judicial activism. But either way, these behaviors are annoying.  I also find it highly interesting that most government employees just do the bare minimum, nothing more, but then these judges seem to want to go above and beyond their job description, so much so that they want to do their job, along with that of the entire legislature as well.

I came across this great post about the CA Supreme Court from a fellow blogger over at Does My Vote Really Count. It’s time to write letters folks and tell the Supreme Court why you think they should uphold our vote on Proposition 8. The great blogger over at “Does My Vote Really Count” posted the mailing address for everyone.  Thanks! Put your real info on the letter, speak up and be proud of your convictions. Just like I said the other day about Obama and other government workers, the Supreme Court Justices also work for us! We have every right to let them know how we feel and ask that they just stick to their job, interpreting the constitution, not changing it. Check out the post and start drafting your letters. The Supreme Court is set to hear anti-Prop 8 arguments in March.

Send your letters to:

Chief Justice Ronald M. George and the
Associate Justices of the California Supreme Court
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102

Pearl-Diver wrote a great letter to the Supreme Court in a post on her blog. Check it out here!

Source: Family Research Council


Labor Unions// ick. . . talk about throwing your weight around, I mean money

More CA labor unions are throwing their weight around

More CA labor unions are throwing their weight around

Big Labor, the most powerful lobby in all of California is urging the court to overturn proposition 8. Again, we ask, just like the CTA, why is it any business of a labor union to support or not support a Constitutional Amendment that has nothing to do with labor? These labor unions feel it is a slippery slope that could lead to other rights being revoked, but Proposition 8 didn’t revoke any rights. Gays didn’t have the right to marry before Prop 8 and they don’t have the right now. What is a right, however, is the right of California voters to “define” the word marriage in their State Constitution.

A coalition of more than 50 labor organizations representing more than two million Californians filed a friend-of-the-court brief Tuesday urging the state Supreme Court to overturn the voter-approved constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

They are arguing the same tired old argument that Jerry Brown is arguing, and that the gay people who filed the law suits are arguing. . . that any change to the Constitution that takes away fundamental rights or divides citizens into a suspect class, has to be done by a revision and not by a mere amendment. They are apparently bent out of shape that California voters have exercised their political rights and voted, and that in this country, majority rules.

“If a simple majority of voters can take away one fundamental right, it can take away another,” the brief states.

Yeah, they have a point, but so what. That is what the Founding Father’s of this country wrote into our Constitution, and that most states have written into theirs. People may not like it, but that doesn’t mean the rules of this country should all just change because gays want to up and get married and adopt children all of a sudden.

“We believe Prop. 8 is improper and it’s immoral and it’s also legally invalid,” Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, told reporters Tuesday. “We have an interest not only in defending the rights of our members, but we have an interest in defending the constitution of California.”

So  Big Labor is so concerned with the morality of California voters who are for Prop 8, but they are not, however, concerned with the moral character, or lack there of, of the people they purport to be defending. Interesting.

It doesn’t matter that most rank-and-file union members voted in favor of Proposition 8, according to exit polls. More than 50 of the biggest unions in the state joined to essentially support gay marriage. In a political sense, it figures: Unions, Democrats and gay leaders are traditional allies in California – the views of their members be damned.

I guess they fit the union profile. The CTA didn’t care how their members voted on Prop 8 either. They used their union dues for personal interests and supported No on 8 anyway.

UHW-West President Sal Rosselli is worried that wealthy, bigoted people could organize the votes of the electorate to take away other civil rights. This is an interesting statement coming from the opposition. Doesn’t it appear that they are trying to do the same thing, well, in a running-after-the-bus kind of way. They couldn’t organize their voters and get Prop 8 passed, so they are going to the CA Supreme court to tattle on the unfair Prop 8 voters. sniff. . . sniff. . .

Equality California executive director Geoff Kors said he believes “the leadership of labor in this brief is going to have a tremendous impact.” Jenny Pizer, Lambda Legal senior counsel and Marriage Project director, said the brief “is putting a special emphasis on how high the stakes are here for everybody in California.”

They have a point, the stakes are high for everyone in California, but not for the reasons they think. If traditional marriage isn’t protected in this state, and in the country, there will be a dangerous fall out.

The California Supreme Court has set a fast-tracked briefing schedule, which should be completed this month, with oral arguments heard as soon as March.

The info from this post came from a tip from the DNA. If you want to blog, write, comment in defense of traditional marriage, then click the DNA badge in the side bar or visit www.digitalnetworkarmy.com and sign up. Check out their site for more information. I’m proud to be a part of this great army and to work with other like-minded individuals in this great marriage fight! We are always looking for more people to join our team!

Sources: Sacbee.com Marcos Breton: Prop 8 is personal for union leader

contracostatimes.com Big labor urges court to invalidate Prop 8

{ Update to the Supreme Court Battle Over Proposition 8 }

A Traditional Marriage...one man....one woman!

A Traditional Marriage...one man....one woman!

So we all know that the homosexual agenda is to indoctrinate everyone, and use the argument of civil rights as their so-called “get out of jail free card.” I don’t happen to think it works like this.

So get this…..here’s some good news presented by the NY Times for the Yes on 8 camp. They reported that one of the major challenges for the judges is the slim batch of case law on the topic. There is essentially no precedent on the issue and therefore, the Supreme Court Justices don’t have any previous ruling that will constrict their decision and force them to rule in favor of homosexual marriage. Essentially, they are free to set the precedent that other courts will then have to follow. If they are able, they can start fresh in their decisions, without being bound by previous rulings on same-sex marriage and constitutional amendments. They Court said they would rule on Proposition 8 next year. A huge challenge being the, “slim batch of case law on the topic.”

The CA Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments over same-sex marriage again in December, and some such 18,000 alleged marriages hang in the balance. “And the justices could lose out, too; some are already being threatened with being voted out of office if they rule Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.”

“This is the whole ballgame,” said Jesse Choper, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley. “They earn their salaries in having to decide these things.” They get paid to be fair and impartial in their ruling, all while taking into serious consideration, the will of the voters, the majority of Californians who want the definition of marriage to be defined at “only between a man and a woman.” Only these marriages would be “valid or recognized” in CA. Gay rights activists might look at this lack of legal precedent as a potential slam-dunk for them, however, I think it that it will prove to be a win for traditional marriage and upholding Proposition 8. There’s not much telling the Court that is has to rule in favor of gay marriage or the alleged lack of civil rights the gays constantly complain of.

“The California Supreme Court has never articulated criteria for what makes something an amendment versus a revision,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Irvine. “So I don’t think you can predict anything because there is so little law.”

Good news for those of us who voted YES on Proposition 8: “Supporters of the ban say legal history is on their side. “Whenever an amendment or an initiative has been challenged, almost always the court rejects that and upholds the people’s initiative power,” said Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for backers of the proposition, citing past state bans on the use of race, sex or ethnicity in college admissions and caps on property taxes. “These are major policy changes that the court has recognized are fine,” he said.”

That is part of the main problem. As I see it, gay rights activists and same-sex marriage proponents are bent out of shape because the YES on 8 campaign used the proper legislative process, took the issue up with the voters, placed the question on the ballot, and let the citizens decide what they wanted in THEIR Consitution, as in a consitution that belongs to ALL of us Californians. Gay rights activists seem to act like OUR constution belongs to ONLY THEM. WRONG!!!!!!! They need to wake up and stop whining that they didn’t get themselves together enough to put their own initiative on the ballot, to define marriage as they wanted to. Now they will just have to be at the mercy of the court. Talk about sour grapes…….

There have been few efforts to overturn same-sex marriage amendments in other states, and as David Masci, a senior research fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life in Washington states, “so far non have been successful.”

Along with speculation of what will happen to the same-sex marriages that have already been performed, I wonder why, if this was ssssooooo important to homosexuals, didn’t more people run out and get married! I know gay couples who didn’t bother to do so. It’s almost like the some of them are fighting for something that they don’t really have any intention of using, but then again, many people know it’s not about marriage, it’s about their take-over of society and destruction of morality within it. I really hope the court doesn’t buy in to this mess. With all of the studies about the unhealthy relationships that occur between homosexual couples, it’s not likely many of them would even marry, or if they did, would stay married. Why clog up the courts with more divorce nonsense and more complicated custody battles?????

Source: NY Times- With Same-Sex Marriage, the Court Takes on the People’s Voice.

{ The Supreme Court Has Spoken…..aren’t we lucky… }

CA Supreme Court

CA Supreme Court

It looks like the saga continues, and how upstanding of the court to not let gays marry until after their ruling on the three law suite. I mean, the people did vote and majority has already ruled on the issue. Give me a break, these law suits are rediculous….

Nov 19, 5:07 PM (ET)

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.


Defamer.com says:

BREAKING: Six of seven CA Supreme Court agreed today to review the legal challenges to Prop 8 brought by married same-sex couples. Until they rule, all further same-sex marriages are suspended, and the status of those already wed remains to be determined. What are the chances they’ll overturn the challenge? Slim, but they have done so in the past: “In 1966, the California Supreme Court struck down an initiative that would have permitted racial discrimination in housing. Voters had approved the measure, a repeal of a fair housing law, by a 2-to-1 margin.” Hang in there, D.L. Hughley—we realize how confusing all of this can be!