Well some of them anyway. The California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 8 gay marriage ban while allowing the existing gay marriages performed between June and Nov. 2008 to stand — minus the divorces of course. They totally have Miss California USA’s back (no… no photos — I don’t show photos of 17 year old — you have to visit Rich’s basement for that and even then they’re all wearing polka dresses). Now comes the U.S. Supreme Court of the U.S. filing I’m sure after a petition for rehearing at the CA Supreme Court.
The Sotomayor nomination is a push on the issue because I’m sure in her ancient feminine Hispanic wisdom gays can marry — just like in old Tenochtitlan. If the case were to be accepted by the court — all it takes is 4 Justices to agree to hear it — Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Stevens for sure (not sure about Breyer, but I would wager “Yes”) and then a couple of years down the road Stevens and Ginsberg are gone. In Obama’s dream scenario — one of the conservative justices would die retire and he could tip the balance. 2010 elections become even more important so we can get a filibuster back or outright win the Senate. I wouldn’t be surprised if Spector wouldn’t side with Repubs on Sotomayor (but nothing he does surprises me).
You see he’s against gay marriage which helps him get elected, but he will appoint judges who will do the dirty work for him. He can then shrug and blame the judges.
So democracy stands for another day.
Even having them pronounce judgment means the death of democracy in equipoise with republicanism. We have moved to oligarchy in many areas.
It’s time for change, we’ve had this same, boring government for over 200 years! I’m holding out for an Exilarchy, Logocracy or maybe Panarchism.
I’d like to agree with you, Floyd. Or even disagree.
But I don’t feel like dragging out the old Funk and Wagnalls right now.
Yeah, good point. Maybe refocusing on ending judicial activism and fiat should be more of a priority for the GOP. The Democrats victories legislatively are few, they tend to wield power with the robe and gavel.
Did somebody say, “Fiat?!”
Finally, one glimmer of hope in this sea of emotional sludge.
Floyd,save me a thread….I spent the last week in Paris,and want to say something nice about the French(!!!)
Did you make it to the Musee d’ Orsay?
I wonder if the Supreme Court would agree to hear it. Pretty much everyone involved in the case, except the real vocal pro-gay marriage activists, expected this result. The Supreme Court has to have some grounds on which to accept the case and there really isn’t any. The California Constitution is pretty explicit on how it can be amended.
A more likely scenario (after the initial, inevitable screaming and shouting) is a push for another amendment to nullify the last.
Yeah Skip… on second thought I don’t know how likely it is that the U.S. Supreme Court will get involved. The CA Court basically reaffirmed that the people are more powerful than the judiciary and I doubt SCOTUS would touch that.
Next Prop season you’ll see a new prop legalizing gay marriage.
And I should add I agree with the court keeping intact the existing unions. They created the limbo status with their meddling, but once people act in reliance on then existing law — the law should back them up.
Though it usually needs some snagging of antacid shortly afterward, I loved listening to my
liberalstatist co-workers reaction to this ruling. They’re convinced it’s all going to be OK because of the President’s Supreme Court nominee announcement this morning.How’s that Ted Templeman-produced Van Halen song (kinda) go? Fools, I work with fools…
I also love the sanctimonious posturing “Someday people will live in a country where they can be free.” Etc etc etc.
How does reaffirming biology and natural law take anything away from anyone?
Still looks like a 5-4 conservative court after “Suture” leaves.
As a matter of fact,Rufus,I did…a beautiful building,that old train station.Of the art museums I think that I liked the Orangerie best:it was small,but the collection was so high quality.
‘natch
“In a 136-page majority ruling written by Chief Justice Ronald George, the justices said it was not their job to address whether the ban was wise public policy, but only to decide whether it was constitutionally valid, while ’setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.’”
This restores at least a little faith in the judiciary.