LeftyMom
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-05-09 09:06 PM
Response to Original message |
| 3. No, the case deals with issues relating to the California constitution |
|
not questions of federal law or a conflict between states. The highest authority on California law (with very few exceptions) is the Supreme Court of the state of California.
Federalism 101.
|
| -Prop 8 - Question.. if God forbid, the SCoC upholds the law - can it be appealed |
Hawkeye-X |
Mar-05-09 08:55 PM |
#0 |
 -
If not the present case then sooner or later a case about Gay marriage |
dflprincess |
Mar-05-09 09:00 PM |
#1 |
  -
No, not in this format. But if a gay couple sued for marriage equality, then |
glowing |
Mar-05-09 09:32 PM |
#4 |
| -
Since part of the case seems to be about the status of the 18,000 couples married before Prop 8 |
csziggy |
Mar-05-09 10:28 PM |
#6 |
| -
Yes, that would probably work.. but it would have to be about the people, and not |
glowing |
Mar-06-09 06:11 PM |
#72 |
| -
only if you have MORE $$ than the Mormon church nt |
msongs |
Mar-05-09 09:04 PM |
#2 |
| -
No, the case deals with issues relating to the California constitution |
LeftyMom |
Mar-05-09 09:06 PM |
#3 |
| -
If the California Court Upholds Prop 8, |
tonysam |
Mar-05-09 09:40 PM |
#5 |
| -
though im loathe to say it the recall would probuably be justified |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 10:31 PM |
#7 |
| -
So which of your rights would you like removed by voters next year? |
Starry Messenger |
Mar-05-09 10:34 PM |
#8 |
| -
no problem, what rights would you rather have 9 people decide for you to have |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 10:36 PM |
#10 |
| -
Well, deciding that the equal protection clause applies to all of our citizens. |
Starry Messenger |
Mar-05-09 10:42 PM |
#13 |
| -
activist judges ending institutionalized segregation... |
libnnc |
Mar-05-09 10:44 PM |
#16 |
| -
ideally it would be better if the amendments were made, sort of bomb proof them |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 10:45 PM |
#17 |
| -
So which of your rights would you like to do without? |
Starry Messenger |
Mar-05-09 10:48 PM |
#19 |
| -
well seeing that guns are already covered by an amendment i think you make my point. |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 10:52 PM |
#21 |
| -
Yes, I would. |
Starry Messenger |
Mar-05-09 10:55 PM |
#26 |
| -
LOL |
libnnc |
Mar-05-09 10:56 PM |
#30 |
| -
Wouldn't that be stunning? |
Starry Messenger |
Mar-05-09 11:47 PM |
#59 |
| -
on you go and if you get enough people to vote that way |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 10:59 PM |
#32 |
| -
amendments can be amended |
dsc |
Mar-06-09 04:18 AM |
#68 |
| -
Yes I too agree with you to a point |
Politicalboi |
Mar-07-09 09:46 PM |
#78 |
| -
You don't seem to understand that our rights are inherent and NOT decided by the bigoted majority! |
Zhade |
Mar-05-09 11:20 PM |
#43 |
| -
i guess you havent read were i stated i was against the amendment |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 11:27 PM |
#52 |
| -
You're FOR the tyranny of the majority. The citizenry DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to take ours away. |
Zhade |
Mar-05-09 11:29 PM |
#53 |
| -
A very small group of very rich white guys made that Amendment, not "the people" |
LostinVA |
Mar-06-09 05:20 AM |
#71 |
| -
Right. Seems to me one way to clarify this Prop 8 thing is if hetero couples |
sohndrsmith |
Mar-07-09 09:24 PM |
#76 |
| -
The populace DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT to take away our rights! |
Zhade |
Mar-05-09 11:18 PM |
#40 |
| -
if its unconstitutional then the court will find that way. |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 11:20 PM |
#42 |
| -
Bullshit they will. Judges aren't infallible -- sometimes they're bigoted too. |
Zhade |
Mar-05-09 11:25 PM |
#50 |
| -
tell that to the mob in the street looking for the latest scapegoats |
jacksonian |
Mar-05-09 11:21 PM |
#44 |
| -
Fuck that. My right's aren't up for a vote. Agreeing with that doesn't mean 9 robed |
readmoreoften |
Mar-06-09 12:59 AM |
#64 |
| -
Screw that bullshit, civil rights should NOT be put up to a vote, period. n/t |
Solon |
Mar-05-09 10:38 PM |
#11 |
| -
nah we should always allow 9 people to decide what rights we have with no recource to change them |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 10:41 PM |
#12 |
| -
They were not changing rights. |
Starry Messenger |
Mar-05-09 10:43 PM |
#14 |
| -
Judges already have had that power since, oh, I don't know, about the 1820s or so... |
Solon |
Mar-05-09 10:44 PM |
#15 |
| -
and the problem is that judges can also take away rights if they are so inclined |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 10:47 PM |
#18 |
| -
That's insanity, first off, when it comes to federal amendments... |
Solon |
Mar-05-09 10:49 PM |
#20 |
| -
History also shows that people who put power into a fews hands come a cropper. |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 10:53 PM |
#23 |
| -
First off, that power is limited to interpreting the law or testing its validity... |
Solon |
Mar-05-09 10:56 PM |
#27 |
| -
okay then educate me |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 10:58 PM |
#31 |
| -
"standards under the law" and who interprets whether this was followed or not? |
Solon |
Mar-05-09 10:59 PM |
#33 |
| -
jeez you are being obtuse, ill say it again if the vote is legal |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 11:03 PM |
#35 |
| -
The Judges don't set the standards, the Constitution does... |
Solon |
Mar-05-09 11:04 PM |
#36 |
| -
i think we are at cross purposes here, ill try to term it differently |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 11:09 PM |
#37 |
| -
Anyone who dismisses any judicial oversight as "finageling" should really just shut up now.... |
Solon |
Mar-05-09 11:16 PM |
#38 |
| -
okay ill let you take away my rights to speech, thats cool i dont think you are capable |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 11:18 PM |
#41 |
| -
Where the fuck did I take away your right to free speech? |
Solon |
Mar-05-09 11:22 PM |
#45 |
| -
ah the last refuge accusations of being a freeper. i simply have a disagreement with you |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 11:24 PM |
#47 |
| -
A disagreement that's based purely on your ignorance of how Judicial Oversight works in this... |
Solon |
Mar-05-09 11:25 PM |
#51 |
| -
Rights of speech? |
Starry Messenger |
Mar-05-09 11:25 PM |
#49 |
| -
nope not an american by birth, but by choice so my language usage is slightly different |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 11:29 PM |
#54 |
| -
You language usage is fine, I would have pegged you as an American by birth... |
Solon |
Mar-05-09 11:33 PM |
#55 |
| -
Ok, well that explains a few things. |
Starry Messenger |
Mar-05-09 11:34 PM |
#56 |
| -
lol no problem i guess i kinda worded what i was trying to say wrong |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 11:36 PM |
#57 |
| -
You think that the bigoted majority voting to take away a minority group's rights is okay? |
Zhade |
Mar-05-09 11:24 PM |
#48 |
| -
The Constitution of this country DOES NOT ALLOW FOR MINORITY RIGHT TO BE TAKEN AWAY BY THE MAJORITY. |
Zhade |
Mar-05-09 11:23 PM |
#46 |
| -
That's why we're all dead now. |
Starry Messenger |
Mar-05-09 10:56 PM |
#29 |
| -
Um, thanks. That's how we lost our right to marry -- the bigotry of the many. |
Zhade |
Mar-05-09 11:17 PM |
#39 |
| -
So, then slavery and no voting rights for women would be okay with you? |
LostinVA |
Mar-06-09 05:17 AM |
#70 |
| -
Not really. |
LeftyMom |
Mar-05-09 10:54 PM |
#25 |
| -
ill defer to your knowledge on this |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 10:56 PM |
#28 |
| -
The question is whether or not the vote was consistent with the state constitution |
LeftyMom |
Mar-05-09 11:01 PM |
#34 |
| -
Not if one can successfully argue that Prop 8 violates the United States Constitution, |
Hosnon |
Mar-06-09 12:19 AM |
#63 |
| -
The CA constitution can be declared unconstitutional. |
Angleae |
Mar-07-09 09:29 PM |
#77 |
| -
nope |
crimsonblue |
Mar-05-09 10:36 PM |
#9 |
| -
Ultimately, couldn't the argument be made that the CA state constitution is, in part |
flvegan |
Mar-05-09 10:52 PM |
#22 |
| -
lol i understood what you were getting at |
vadawg |
Mar-05-09 10:53 PM |
#24 |
| -
Regarding Constitutionality |
Renaissance Man |
Mar-05-09 11:45 PM |
#58 |
| -
Why does the Dept of the Treasury define "marriage" then? |
flvegan |
Mar-05-09 11:56 PM |
#60 |
| -
What do you mean by "breaches federalism"? |
Hosnon |
Mar-05-09 11:59 PM |
#62 |
| -
What happens if the current court finds that Prop 8 is |
Thothmes |
Mar-06-09 06:56 PM |
#73 |
| -
Then the SCOTUS has decided Its position. I believe the original question |
Hosnon |
Mar-07-09 09:14 PM |
#75 |
| -
I think so, yes. An obvious example would be if a state constitution prohibited women from voting. |
Hosnon |
Mar-05-09 11:56 PM |
#61 |
| -
Great example ..... thank you |
TWiley |
Mar-06-09 04:20 AM |
#69 |
| -
Not sure if the you left off the sarcasm smilie... |
Hosnon |
Mar-07-09 09:11 PM |
#74 |
| -
I don't think we'd want it to |
shimmergal |
Mar-06-09 02:39 AM |
#67 |
| -
Sure it could be, but I doubt they would hear the case |
Hippo_Tron |
Mar-06-09 01:11 AM |
#65 |
| -
All the times I've seen the "Yes on 8" people celebrate their "victory" |
t0dd |
Mar-06-09 02:08 AM |
#66 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread