Thursday, August 5, 2010

Proposition 8: Ruling against Prop. 8 could lead to federal precedent on gay marriage - latimes.com


Judge strikes down Prop. 8, allows gay marriage in California [Updated]

Proposition 8: Ruling against Prop. 8 could lead to federal precedent on gay marriage - latimes.com


This news comes as no surprise to me; from all the coverage of this trial I read, it seemed clear that the defense did a really pathetic job. But how could they have done otherwise? Their position was, from a constitutional standpoint, indefensible under equal protection, just as past bans on interracial marriage were.

I'm most curious to see if any Ninth Amendment arguments will come into play when this gets to the court of last resort. Five and Fourteen, sure, but will they have the nerve to bring up naughty number Nine? I doubt it.

We all know how Scalia and Thomas are going to vote, so that's a done deal. (Oops, forgot O'Connor was retired -- dumb comment redacted.) Then there's the whole (perpetually unmarried) Elena Kagan situation....

As the saying goes: may you live in interesting times.

9 comments:

  1. For starters, O'Conner is no longer on the court, she was replaced by Alito several years ago. And by the time this comes before the SCOTUS Elena Kagen will be confirmed. The real swing vote in this case will be Kennedy. Scalia and Thomas are political hacks and will find a way to vote against marriage equality. Roberts and Alito are corprate hacks, so which way they swing on this issue may still be in question.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, duh. Stupid mistake on O'Connor. Thanks for calling me out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. To Dave: I don't disagree on the Scalia & Thomas comment, but I do agree on the Roberts & Alito comment.

    Alito is more religious than political.

    Roberts, because he was nominated by the MSM's favorite POTUS EVER, gets a bad wrap.

    he is highly respected for removing his feelings from court cases and only applying rules and laws. he doesn't over step his bounds. He's pro-life yet was a part of the majority backing partial birth abortion.

    Also, on the flip side, Ginsburg is hands down the MOST political judge on the bench. She's the text book definition of a judicial activist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous:

    Roberts doesn't overstep his bounds? Two words, "Citizens United".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry Dave, but you're wrong.
    Roberts made it clear his decision was based on 1st Amendment rights, and the right to political speech is same for you, me, a union and CORPORATIONS.

    I could get in the nuances of the case, but I won't and I will admit that I am on the Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, Thomas & Roberts side.

    With McCain-Feingold, Unions got a free pass to take over our government, and they did. SEIU, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, UTLA, CTA, have way TOO much sway over our politicians. There's no counterweight... until now.

    Citizens made the playing field fair.

    The dissent was from the liberal side, with the so called lone middle and fair person Kennedy disagreeing, believed corporations have no access to political speech because they are not individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Are you arguing that corporations *are* the equivalent of individuals? Surely you jest.

    BTW, the term "partial birth abortion" has no scientific or medical validity; it's just a linguistic tactic designed to evoke an emotional response.

    Speaking of linguistic tactics, if I ruled the world, I'd replace the term "pro-choice" with "pro-privacy."

    ReplyDelete
  7. to L.J. re: above comment - yes, "pro-privacy" all the way.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous:

    You are seriously going to argue that Unions have as much politcial power in this country as corporations? Really? Unions may have played a major role at one time, but with Union membership dwindling down to around 12 percent, they are nowhere near the political force they once were. Look, when a major oil company makes 40 Billion a year in profits, and is more than willing to shovel a significant portion to politcal candidates who will toe their line, there is no parity. The entire notion that money equals free speech is crap anyway. We are heading toward a situation where only mega millionaires or billionaires, or those funded by huge corporations will be able to run for office. Do you really think Meg Whitman needs to spend 200 MILLION dollars to buy her way into office?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dave, unions don't have as much political power as corporations, THEY HAVE MORE. Sacramento is owned by unions, ask any former Assembly or Senate member or their staffer. The current ones won't admit because the "pay" is great.
    POTUS rejected corporate bond holders and handed ownership of Chrysler and GM to UNIONS and NOT corporations.
    Unions spend millions, MILLIONS, on elections and lobbying. Unrestricted MILLIONS. SEIU spends more in one year than Whitman will for her gubernatorial race. What is the counterweight? You're saying corporations shouldn't be allowed to lobby in the same way as unions? Unions can directly put together a political ad on TV endorsing Jerry Brown but Boeing can't do the same for Whitman? That's ok for you?

    Last I checked, the constitution offered the same rights for EVERYONE. Not just 1 group. Kind of like Prop 8. And, to circle around for you, Roberts will reject propr8 for the same reasons he was on the Citizens side.

    And I would rather have someone spend personal wealth than take special interest money and be OWEND. So Whitman can spend $1Billion for the job, it's her money, you don't get to tell her what to do with it. And how's that buying an office?
    By saying Whitman is buying the office means all public offices are for sale!
    So Obama spend $800Million to buy the office?!
    Jerry Brown is using union dollars to buy the office?
    Whitman is using her own money to buy the office?

    Your comment lacks substance, or insight.

    Whitman is not standing on a corner saying here $100 vote for me. She's doing what all candidates do, she's running a campaign. Offices, ads, traveling. The only difference: she's using her money without pandering to you, me, special interest or anyone else. She's putting her money where her mouth is! Isn't that what America is all about? Believe in something: Don't talk about it, do it and put your money where you mouth is.

    And finally, no I don't think Whitman needs to spend $200M, because she's running unopposed. Brown isn't even running. But if he wins... G-D help us all.

    ReplyDelete

There was an error in this gadget