Courts now denying Democracy.

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by RetiredGySgt, Aug 13, 2010.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,575
    Thanks Received:
    5,902
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,990
    The Federal Judge that struck down Gay marriage ban AMENDMENT has stated that no one but the State of California has the right to appeal the ban. The Governor and the Attorney General both refuse to do so.

    Unfucking believable.


    We have a court illegally denying the citizens the Democratic process through the Courts. We have a Governor and an Attorney General refusing to do their obligated duty for the people of the State.

    Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

    Time for another recall of a California Governor.
     
  2. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,467
    Thanks Received:
    4,017
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,032
    Maybe they need to sue the Attorney General directly to force him to appeal, as the Proposition is technically "the will of the people." That may be a better avenue.

    Can the AG even legally refuse to enforce or fight for a law he does not agree with without forfieting his position?
     
  3. bodecea
    Offline

    bodecea Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Messages:
    89,155
    Thanks Received:
    10,378
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    #HasNoClothes
    Ratings:
    +23,677
    Cry us a river.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    How sad you cant get any help in keeping rights from Americans
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    Appeals aren't mandatory. Perhaps the State simply decided not to spend the time and money.
     
  6. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,467
    Thanks Received:
    4,017
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,032
    My concern is that this will not settle the issue. By denying the right to appeal and to have the case wind its way to the supreme court you still leave the question up in the air.

    The amendment was passed by direct democracy, it was added to the constitution of the state. Yes the court found it in violation of the US constiution, but as an agent of the state isn't the AG duty bound to plead the will of the people of the state, regardless of his own personal beleifs.

    At a minimum there should be some mechanism for the AG to transfer the appeals to another party. Again this will allow the case to continue and for it to be settled by the supreme court.
     
  7. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    Who's denying the right to appeal? Not the Court. But only the losing party has standing to bring an appeal, and they are choosing not to. It's that simple.

    You're right in that it won't settle the issue once and for all, but that's the CA AG's choice to make.

    Maybe they just believe they have bigger things to deal with than spending millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on the three-ring circus this would inevitably turn out to be. I know with their problems it would make me think twice.
     
  8. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,156
    Thanks Received:
    6,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,007
    Vote on Civil rights? We don't do that in this country. At least we're not supposed to.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,779
    Thanks Received:
    4,245
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,167
    Before you become more hysterical, consider:

    STANDING
    The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.

    In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx's declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).

    Standing is founded "in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society. " Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.' " Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.

    Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief "must show a very significant possibility' of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit." Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    Bingo. :clap2:

    Don't forget the State of CA was the defendant in this case. They were challenged, they defended, they lost, for whatever reason they are not choosing to exercise their right to appeal. That case is over.

    Prop 8 supporters can (and very well might) start over again with another intiative or other means to force another case, but perhaps unfortunately this one is in the books and done. It would have been interesting to see if there would have been a final resolution to the question down the line. But...it is what it is.
     

Share This Page