Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Thank you Justice Carlos R. Moreno, the CA Supreme Courts lone dissenter on Prop 8

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:50 PM
Original message
Thank you Justice Carlos R. Moreno, the CA Supreme Courts lone dissenter on Prop 8
Justice Carlos R. Moreno, in the lone dissent, warned that today's ruling "places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored majorities."

"It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority," wrote Moreno, the court's only Democratic appointee.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-decision2...

In my view, the aim of Proposition 8 and all similar initiative measures that seek to alter the California Constitution to deny a fundamental right to a group that has historically been subject to discrimination on the basis of a suspect classification, violates the essence of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution and fundamentally alters its scope and meaning. Such a change cannot be accomplished through the initiative process by a simple amendment to our Constitution enacted by a bare majority of the voters; it must be accomplished, if at all, by a constitutional revision to modify the equal protection clause to protect some, rather than all, similarly situated persons. I would therefore hold that Proposition 8 is not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.

Justice Carlos R Moreno, from the sole dissenting opinion on Prop 8
http://www.miketidmus.com/blog/2009/05/26/the-quotable-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. I wonder if we're going to get a lecture about stereotypes in this thread.
Someone in another thread posted something about Sotomayer fitting the "hispanic, catholic" stereotype. :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Amen Justice Moreno!
Edited on Tue May-26-09 03:00 PM by Hepburn
You are the only one of those who got it right.

What you have stated is the EXACT problem with allowing what was done by the homophobes in last November's election.

Who is next???

Women, Jews, African Americans, Asians, Left Handed People? Where the fuck will it stop.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. Absolutely right...this was a no-brainer...the equal protection clause is violated by this...
...and that trumps any "revision."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MountainLaurel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
5. Thank you Justice Moreno n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
6. I could see this coming
when the pig fucker Starr was giving his arguments. All of the other justices were trying to restrain themselves from running down and sucking his dick. Their fawning over him was absolutely sickening. That's when I knew we had lost it. In fact, I told friends that day that this was the decision that was coming. You could see it in their faces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. You mean Ken Starr?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nichomachus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. The very same
pig fucker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. Thank you, Justice Moreno.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
10. Thank you, Justice Moreno.
A protected class ("suspect class") is supposed to be PROTECTED from the tyranny of the majority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
11. " The equal protection clause is therefore, by its nature, inherently countermajoritarian."
Here another link to much of his dissenting opinion, which in MY opinion eviscerates every argument the supporters or apologists are making defending this decision or claiming it was a legally necessary decision.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/26/735581/-The-Lau...

Some semi-random extracts:

The question before us is not whether the language inserted into the California Constitution by Proposition 8 discriminates against same-sex couples and denies them equal protection of the law; we already decided in the Marriage Cases that it does. The question before us today is whether such a change to one of the core values upon which our state Constitution is founded can be accomplished by amending the Constitution through an initiative measure placed upon the ballot by the signatures of 8 percent of the number of persons who voted in the last gubernatorial election and passed by a simple majority of the voters. (Cal. Const., art. II, 8.) Or is this limitation on the scope of the equal protection clause to deny the full protection of the law to a minority group based upon a suspect classification such a fundamental change that it can only be accomplished by revising the California Constitution, either through a constitutional convention or by a measure passed by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature and approved by the voters?

The equal protection clause is therefore, by its nature, inherently countermajoritarian. As a logical matter, it cannot depend on the will of the majority for its enforcement, for it is the will of the majority against which the equal protection clause is designed to protect. Rather, the enforcement of the equal protection clause is especially dependent on “the power of the courts to test legislative and executive acts by the light of constitutional mandate and in particular to preserve constitutional rights, whether of individual or minority, from obliteration by the majority.”

he constitutional right to marry . . . has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution . . . .” (Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 781.)

Describing the effect of Proposition 8 as narrow and limited fails to acknowledge the significance of the discrimination it requires. But even a narrow and limited exception to the promise of full equality strikes at the core of, and thus fundamentally alters, the guarantee of equal treatment that has pervaded the California Constitution since 1849. Promising equal treatment to some is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment to all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BolivarianHero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
12. That's nice...
So most of the justices were appointed by Gropenfuhrer, Wilson, and Dukmejian (a freedom-hating far-right psycopath)? I would have a hard time addressing these people as Mr. or Madame Justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
13. I am happy that Justice Moreno voted the way he did, but I'm angry he was the only one.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jesus_of_suburbia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
14. Thank you Justice Moreno!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
15. K & R! And thank you Justice Moreno!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HOLOS Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
16. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
17. k & r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-26-09 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
18. Yes, thank you
The only judge with a conscience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 31st 2014, 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC