The Supreme Court was emphatic that it would "undermine" the California ballot initiative process if the governor and attorney general can trump the voters by declining to defend such laws in the courts.Now we get to find out how an amendment to the Constitution can in itself be declared unconstitutional. Doesn't make sense to me, but the gay lobby and the liberal judges will do everything they can to kill this amendment.
"The inability of the official proponents of an initiative measure to appeal a trial court judgment invalidating the measure, when the public officials who ordinarily would file such an appeal decline to do so, would significantly undermine the initiative power," Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote for the [unanimous] court....
"This frees up the 9th Circuit to go ahead and decide the constitutional issues on the merits," said Theodore Olson, former U.S. Solicitor General during the Bush administration. "We're anxious to get to a decision on the merits that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."
Friday, November 18, 2011
California Governor and Attorney General Cannot Trump the Voters
The voters passed Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban, by a significant margin, thus amending the California State Constitution. When the law was challenged in court, the governor and attorney general refused to defend it, and when the proposition's backers wanted to provide a defense, the gay lobby tried to bar them on a basis of legal standing. Yesterday the California Supreme Court ruled the governor and attorney general can't trump the will of the voters by refusing to defend a measure. If they won't do it, the backers of the proposition have legal standing and can provide a defense:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
When D.C. v Heller (D.C.'s gun ban) went to the Supreme Court, the U.S. Solicitor General (Paul Clement) argued in defense of D.C. because an anti-D.C. ruling may have weakened federal gun laws -and it was the Solicitor's job to defend Federal law whether he, or the Bush administration he worked for, agreed with it or not.
That's the way the game is played. That's the way it's always been.
Then came Eric Holder's turn to defend the Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA) -Federal law, whether he liked it or not:
“After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional.”
THIS is the game that liberals play. They are radicals, and they play by a different set of rules.
Post a Comment