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//


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

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.


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


California Supreme Court upholds Proposition 8//


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.

Why You Should Still Worry About Prop 8 & Protecting Marriage// stay involved…

prop-8As voters and citizens, we have more responsibilities to participate in our society and our government, above and beyond simply voting…. You voted. That’s great!!!!! If you voted with out studying the issues….not so great, unless of course you voted Yes on 8. No studying needed there.

Participating in our society, legislative, and legal processes is a full time job people! You can’t just check in once every 4 years because it’s fun to get an “I Voted” sticker at the polling place! (Although I love those too!) With the chaos that is constantly going on in politics, our economy and our society,  with the evils that constantly fight to destroy our marriages, our families and our children, we need to be constantly informed, educated, and up to date. We need to act according to our values and participate whenever and where ever we can, to make sure that our legislators are subsequently acting according to our values themselves, when they allegedly represent us.

Defending Marriage and Proposition 8 is no different. The legal battle is looming (this Thursday) and here’s what you need to know and why you still need to stay informed. The brilliant blogger John Galt over at Good Sense Politics has graciously provided me and other marriage bloggers with the following information. Read up and pass it on!

I Thought Prop 8 Passed. Why do I Still Need to Worry About It?

Because the Governor, the Attorney General, the Legislature and the Supreme Court of California, along with the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Clara are all conspiring to once again overturn the vote of the people last Nov. 4th. The State Supreme Court will hear arguments and is expected to nullify Prop 8 this Thursday, March 5th!

Why is it important that Prop 8 not be overturned?

{Click here to continue reading…}

Rally in Person, or Watch the Hearing on TV// Prop 8 goes to court on Thursday…

Well to everyone but homosexuals, the CA Supreme Court and the Legislature

Well to everyone but homosexuals, the CA Supreme Court and the Legislature

Prop 8 oral arguments begin this Thursday at the California Supreme Court in Downtown San Francisco.

If  you can attend, make some signs and get out there in support of real marriage!!!!! Help send a message to the court.

Time: March 5, 2009 from 9am to 12pm
Location: California Supreme Court – San Francisco, CA

Call your local newspapers and news stations! Let them know that the will of the people will be represented, whether at the courthouse or at individual residences across the state. We are still here. We are California. California has voted!

Coverage of the hearing will be broadcast on The California Channel and can also be viewed in a live stream online at…
Info courtesy of Pearl-Diver!

Senate approves resolution opposing Proposition 8// our legislators apparently don’t actually represent us…


Just days before the matter is to be taken up by California’s Supreme Court, the state Senate today approved a resolution today calling Proposition 8, the ban on same-sex marriage, an improper revision of the Constitution because it was not approved by the Legislature.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said the initiative is a fundamental revision to the document, not an amendment, and therefore required deliberation by the Legislature and a two-thirds vote of both houses to put it on the ballot.

“Do we have a constitutional democracy in California, or do we have mob rule?” Leno asked his colleagues before the 18-14 vote approved the resolution.

The issue of whether proper procedures were followed in putting the measure on the ballot is to be considered Thursday, when the state Supreme Court takes up a legal challenge to the ballot measure.

Republican senators said the resolution was an inappropriate attempt by the Legislature to influence the courts.

“Californians have spoken. They have spoken a couple of times,” said Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster). “I guess I don’t see the California citizens, who I believe thoughtfully went to their voting places, as participating in mob rule.”


Marriage Ruling Gave Gay People Legal Protection// gotta read the fine print…

On page 100 of the 124-page ruling, in dense legal prose, Chief Justice Ronald George ruled that a special constitutional protection applies to people based on their sexual orientation.

Thanks a lot Chief Justice. It looks like someone finally read the May 2008 ruling on the legality of Prop 22, in its entirety, and found a little morsel for gays to use come next week when arguments on the legality of Prop 8’s Constitutional Amendment begin in California’s Supreme Court.

In essence, the court said discrimination against gays and lesbians was equivalent to racial, age or gender discrimination, giving same-sex-rights advocates a powerful legal weapon in the future.

The special protection the court gave in May – which Proposition 8 does not affect – means that any state law or policy that is alleged to discriminate against gays and lesbians now will be analyzed under the most stringent legal standard a court can apply. Few laws survive such a test, known as “strict scrutiny.” [Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts reviewing federal law.]

The court’s findings in May now strengthen the protections to gays and lesbians where employment and health care are concerned, as well as in other areas,

It would be harder for judges to use sexual orientation as a reason to deny gays and lesbians certain rights, such as in child-custody cases and employment cases. And if in the future a new Legislature wanted to roll back some of the laws extending protections to gays and lesbians, it would be impossible, Greenberg said.

Shaun Martin, a law professor at the University of San Diego School of Law, said it “will make it easier for gays and lesbians to strike at non-marriage laws that may subtly or not so subtly discriminate against them.”

“You are going to have over the next 10 years lawsuits against government for doing things that have an adverse impact on gays and lesbians. And they will cite this case a lot,” Martin said.

Read more about the potential fall-out from the May ruling, here.


Fight Back Against Prop 8 Harassment//

The National Organization for Marriage and Protect have filed a lawsuit to protect the identities of Prop 8 donors. They were not successful in getting a preliminary injunction, which is difficult to get, but the Judge’s Order indicated that he needed more evidence of reprisals against our donors. They need your help to win this suit!

If you or someone you know has been a victim of harassment for their support of Prop 8. Even removal of yard signs or intimidating e-mails are enough to warrant a formal declaration.

We need more donors to sign declarations giving evidence of harassment and intimidation, and are asking you to come forward and help us by giving those declarations.
Click here for info on how you can submit your declaration…your identity will be protected…

Prop. 8 Donors Ask U.S. Court For Anonymity// gays don’t want donors granted privacy

Citing previous death threats and harassment, backers of the Proposition 8 ban on gay marriage will ask a U.S. District Court on Thursday to exempt the measure’s campaign contributors from further public disclosure.

As part of the state campaign finance law, a semi-annual disclosure filing is due on Saturday to ensure that voters know who is backing canditates and ballot measures. However,

A 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling found that disclosure exemptions could be permitted if plaintiffs demonstrate a “reasonable probability” that those identified would be subjected to “threats, harassment, or reprisals.”

When it comes to Prop 8 donors, we are way past any reasonable probability that said donors would be threatened, harassed or encounter other reprisals, like vandalism, stalking, and loosing their jobs, because these things have already and continue to happen.

The lawsuit sites specific death threats received by previously disclosed donors, vandalism to private property, and white powder – eventually determined to be harmless – sent to two Mormon churches.

And it wouldn’t be a Prop 8 issue with out the dissenters complaining. As expected, opponents of the exemption include state Attorney General Jerry Brown, Secretary of State Debra Bowen, and the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission.

Brown said that victims should sue or file criminal charges rather than “carve out a special privilege of anonymity for themselves alone.”

According to the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling as mentioned above, they don’t need to carve out any special privileges. It should be a given, in light of the violent and vulgar treatment received by so many prop 8 donors.

Richard L. Hasen, who specializes in election law at Loyola Law School, said the effort to shield the names of specific donors for Prop. 8 will be an easier argument to make than that for a blanket exemption on all ballot measure disclosures.

“In this case, we have seen credible claims of threats,” said Hasen, who has not taken a public position on the issue.

So I don’t get it. First the dissenters are irritated that we donated to Prop 8, then they are irritated that it passed!!!! Yeah!!! So they head out to harass and intimidate its donors and abuse the donor disclosure list. And now that the donors are fed up with the oppositions’ treatment, they’ve filed for privacy. Given the sitution, Prop 8 donors have every right to want their names removed from public view. What did the dissenters think would happen? Just because they don’t agree with us doesn’t mean we have to stay in plain site with big red targets on our garage doors. We aren’t being cowards, we are simply wanting to keep our jobs, keep our families safe and stop being harassed for exercising our Constitutional right to donate and vote according to our conscience. They don’t see us as a threat, because we aren’t, so they don’t feel the need for their names and donations to the No on 8 campaign to be made private.

Prop. 8 backers’ will make oral arguments before U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., and seek a temporary exemption from filing donors’ names. If granted, the court would then hold further deliberations to determine a final decision.

Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News, said the last time a donor exemption was granted in California was 1989.

“A U.S. District Court in San Francisco ruled that the Socialist Action Party didn’t need to disclose people who contributed to its candidate for San Francisco supervisor,” Winger said. “It was an ACLU case. The city of San Francisco gave in and signed a consent decree.”

Some think that each donor should have to make their own case. But the filing is for the protection of all donors.

Chapman Law School Dean John Eastman, who sides with the Prop. 8 proponents in the case, disagreed, citing the 1982 Supreme Court precedent.

“I don’t find anything in that case saying there has to be individualized threats,” Eastman said. “The whole point is the prospective threat of economic or physical reprisal. How do you know you’re safe from a threat? You don’t wait until the threat has been made.”