No friends in high places

Attorney General Jerry Brown, charged with defending Proposition 8 against its challengers, is urging the state Supreme Court to void the initiative. It’s bad enough that the fate of Prop 8 will be decided by the same judges who illegally voided Prop 22. Now, the initiative does not even have the formality of support by the executive branch. What a circus. Barring divine intervention, I expect same-sex marriage will be the law in California before the end of 2009.


5 thoughts on “No friends in high places

  1. Actually, Jeff, though I hope you are right, my sense is that the California Supremes will uphold Proposition 8. Whether or not our Constitution should be so easy to amend, it is. And has been.

    However, when the case reaches the SCOTUS, I think justices there will have a difficult time upholding the law. It simply doesn’t pass the same sort of “rational purpose” criteria the Court has applied in the past.


  2. I take it this means you think the judges will agree with the homosexual activists that the people were really “revising” rather than “amending” the state constitution, because the change to the state constitution was so “radical,” and that therefore they didn’t have the authority to do this? In that case, it was a real legal circus for them to allow the initiative to go forward in the first place. That same challenge was issued to Prop. 8 even before it went on the ballot, and the justices allowed it. If they are going to void it now on those grounds, this makes their earlier decision to let the people vote on it look ridiculous.


  3. Mistereks: Fear not, the California supremes have no regard for the constitution whatsoever and are purely driven by ideology. They want same-sex marriage in California. If it doesn’t cost them too much, they will make it happen.

    Lydia: Yes, I believe the justices will call this a “revision” and void the initiative. They will look ridiculous to you and me, but they will be heroes to California’s liberal elite which is now in control of all three branches of government. The fact that they let the initiative process go forward in the first place will be perceived as caution and prudence on their part. Recall that most polls indicated that Prop 8 was losing, and losing badly. The justices undoubtedly believed it would be defeated and they would not have to stick their necks out any further.


  4. I fear they will throw out Prop 8 they same way they threw out 1994’s Prop 187 on illegal immigration. If they don’t, it will be because two words were weighing heavily on their minds: Rose. Bird.

    And speaking of justices denied retention at the ballot box: every day I grow more proud of the “No” vote I cast against chief justice Ronald George in 1998. (Too bad 75% of California voted to retain him.) He is scheduled to face voters again in 2010…and you can bet that (and Rose Bird’s fate) will be on his mind as he contemplates what to do about Prop 8.


  5. Chris, funny that you mention Rose Bird in this context. I hope the justices do remember, though it will be hard to predict the public’s reaction in this case. Unlike public support for capital punishment, I think the votes for Prop 8 were driven more by the “ick factor” than deep conviction.

    On the other hand, it is likely that CA voters will be more angry about being overruled by judges than they were about the imposition of same-sex marriage. And CA voters do love to flex their recall muscles.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s