Fascists Leaders in California Sense The Future: Attempt Another Coup on Democracy

[WorldWatcher]

If the supreme court rules that it is valid in a different state then yes Prop 8 in California should be upheld. But, while I may disagree with the States that have allowed homosexual marriage I believe it is in their rights to decide for themselves.

No I didn't read your question thoroughly enough. My fault there. If the supreme court rules that marriage can only be between one man and one woman then it is automatically upheld in all States.

I don't claim to have an inside track on how the SCOTUS will rule (unlike some other posters...).

However...

If such a ruling were made - then that opens a new can of worms and would depend on the action that State attempts to make.

1. If the move is to say that "from this date forward..." no new SSCM's. Then that is one thing.

2. On the other hand if the move is to say invalidate otherwise legal SSCM's that is a whole different kettle of fish under an attempt to apply laws ex post facto, something specifically not allowed under Article IX of the Federal constitution.​

All it really means that instead of a national push for Marriage Equality, the battlegrounds will return to each individual State.



>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Well everyone is in agreement I assume that if one state, like Utah, is found to have the right to say "yes" or "no" via its normal voters' or other consensus to gay marriage, Prop 8 is immediately validated and Upheld. It was never killed. That's my point.

Prop 8 was overturned by the federal judiciary in Perry V. Schwartzenhegger. The USSC allowed that ruling to stand. The power to adjudicate issues of constitutional significance (or 'cases that arise under the constitution' as the constitution puts it) is delegated to the federal judiciary. While the USSC is the chief and most authoritative court in the federal judiciary, any ruling made by a federal court is authoritative unless overruled by a higher court.

And the USSC declined to overturn the outcome of Perry V. Schwartzenhegger. Thus, it stands, voiding Prop 8.

The Legislature of CA isn't overruling the people. There's nothing to overrule, as the federal judiciary has already found that Prop 8 is unconstitutional and thus void. And any law thus voided has no authority....


...Remember, Prop 8 is illegal. Its unconstitutional and void. They couldn't enforce it if they wanted to. And they don't want to.

No, you know it is still in legal limbo.

It really isn't. When the USSC refused to hear the case, there's no one to appeal the case to. The highest judicial authority in the land let a lower court ruling stand. And that lower court ruling made it unconstitutional.

It would be illegal for the CA legislature to enforce or use any definitions from Prop 8.

What law then would the CA legislature be violating by changing their statutues to match the federal judicary's ruling? There is none, as Prop 8 is void. You're claiming its in 'legal limbo', but it not. There are no appeals. The federal judiciary has ruled. Its settled.

Some future date, might that change? Maybe. Until it does, the issue is legally settled. And its completely within the power of the legislature to write law. And to remove passages in the law that have been struck down.

Making the 'coup' and 'sedition' claims more than a little silly.

Rogue CA officials cannot claim ignorance of that as fact.

They're not rogue if they're lawfully elected and lawfully excercising their authority. You can't name any lawful statute that is violated by removing Prop 8's language. As there is none. Prop 8 is void. It is illegal. It is unconstitutional.

You're claiming that because that may change at some future, undetermined date...unless it doesn't......that the CA legislature can't remove it. Sure they can. As they are bound by the court's rulings. And the court has ruled on Prop 8: its unconstitutional. And the legislatures have every authority to remove unconstitutional text from its books.

I've asked before and I'll ask again.....what authority is the CA legislature exercising that they *don't* have on this matter? The answer is none. They have the authority to do exactly what they're doing.

Rendering all the melodramatic 'sedition' and 'coup' and 'fascism' talk as alliterative irrelevance.

So in a pre-emptive anticipated act of contempt of Windsor and what they know are the High Court's leanings, rogue officials in CA sought to gut Prop 8 while it was still alive. It really is like a group of vigilantes putting a prisoner to death because they've already decided that the jury will eventualy find him guilty anyway.

Again, the CA legislatures cannot violate a Supreme Court ruling that *doesn't exist*. you're speaking of a hypothetical ruling that has never been issued. And your 'the jury will eventually find him guilty anyway' analogy is nonsense. The issue has already been adjudicated. There was a trial and everything. The issue has gone all the way to the Supreme Court. They refused to hear the case allowing a lower court ruling to stand.

To use your analogy, there's been a trial, there's been a verdict, there's been a sentence, there's been an appeal, and another appeal. And another appeal And the verdict has has been unheld: prop 8 is unconstitutional.

So much so that it is illegal for California to enact it. That's the legal reality. You're basing your entire argument on a hypothetical ruling that has never been issued and may never be issued. And then going so far as to insist that the CA legislators be imprisoned for their failure to comply with a ruling that has NEVER HAPPENED.

That's ridiculous. There's no 'fascism'. You don't know what the term means. There's no 'coup', as the legislature has the authority its exercising. And there's no sedition, as the CA legislature is *following* the ruling of the federal judiciary. Not your hypothetical, imaginary, maybe someday ruling that doesn't exist.....but the actual ruling that stands now.

And it renders Prop 8 unconstitutional. Thus, the legislature has every authority to act in accordance with that ruling. That's literally the opposite of sedition.

You can keep using the word 'rogue' all you like, but like 'coup', 'sedition', and 'fascism', your reimagining of the term has nothing to do with its actual meaning. As the legislature possesses the authority they are exercising. And are working in accordance with the rulings of the federal judiciary.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry, the identical laws to Prop 8 in other states are being appealed for SCOTUS to touch back on Windsor and visit the 14th for a Final Proclamation on the validity or nonvalidity of them weighed against the constitution. If the Court allows that states have the right to define which behaviors may marry and which cannot, Prop 8 goes from limbo to law again. But while it is in limbo [by virtue of its identical syblings on the way to the Highest Review], it cannot be revoked or altered in any manifestation of law within CA's code system without the voters weighing in and allowing it.

And of course that revocation/alteration has already been done without the voters' permission while it still lingers in limbo. And that is sedition.

If the supreme court rules that it is valid in a different state then yes Prop 8 in California should be upheld. But, while I may disagree with the States that have allowed homosexual marriage I believe it is in their rights to decide for themselves.

No I didn't read your question thoroughly enough. My fault there. If the supreme court rules that marriage can only be between one man and one woman then it is automatically upheld in all States.

It won't rule that way for sure. If you read Windsor the choice of how it will Rule will be one of two things:

1. That states defining marriage to exclude homosexuals and polygamists is against these practitioners' civil rights or

2. That states defining marriage excluding homosexuals and polygamists is within voters of those states rights.

If #1, then by definition all states must allow homosexuals and polygamists to marry and all the perks that come with that [including not being turned away for adopting kids no matter what they do down main street while kids are watching in their "pride" parades]. If #2 is the case, then all the states that defined marriage to not include homosexuals and polygamists have their existing laws re-validated and Upheld.

In California then, in order to make gay marriages legal, the state would have to vote on an intiative to revoke Prop 8 and instill another definition in its place. That's how making laws works there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette can argue forever, but it remains the SCOTUS ruled a private individual has no standing in such matters. And the #1 and the #2 are misreadings of earlier rulings. Polygamy has nothing to do with Amendment 3 from Utah, which is being fast tracked to SCOTUS now. No LGBT cult does not exist. Contraceptives, no marriage equality, was the basis of HL. Therefore, no initiative in California is required at all.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette can argue forever, but it remains the SCOTUS ruled a private individual has no standing in such matters. And the #1 and the #2 are misreadings of earlier rulings. Polygamy has nothing to do with Amendment 3 from Utah, which is being fast tracked to SCOTUS now. No LGBT cult does not exist. Contraceptives, no marriage equality, was the basis of HL. Therefore, no initiative in California is required at all.

Ah, you're back.

A private individual does have standing to defend their initiative system from the very officials who are undermining it. Pretty much of a giant loophole to create a situation where only the people in the perfect position to perform sedition on this level are the ones to appeal any acts of their own sedition to the US Supreme Court.

I would think that if you made that argument, they'd give that ex parte Young thing a pass and allow voters of California to have emergency intervention to preserve democracy in that state.

The rogue officials/LGBT activists/Mark Leno & cohorts there are simply dismantling the initiative law and telling the voters to go **** themselves. Are you telling me that voters in CA have no redress to save their own democracy from the people who are "the only ones with standing to appeal this sedition to the US Supreme Court"???

 

[Silhouette]

I don't claim to have an inside track on how the SCOTUS will rule (unlike some other posters...).

However...

If such a ruling were made - then that opens a new can of worms and would depend on the action that State attempts to make.

1. If the move is to say that "from this date forward..." no new SSCM's. Then that is one thing.

2. On the other hand if the move is to say invalidate otherwise legal SSCM's that is a whole different kettle of fish under an attempt to apply laws ex post facto, something specifically not allowed under Article IX of the Federal constitution.​

All it really means that instead of a national push for Marriage Equality, the battlegrounds will return to each individual State.

Well, did you hear that SCOTUS in the Hobby Lobby case is now reordering re-hearings of old decisions that were vacated? http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-expanded-are-gays-next-muslims-atheists.html

And did you read Windsor where they said a state has a right since the founding of the country to say yes or no to gay marriage? [providing the 14th doesn't apply, which it will be found not to for various compelling reasons]?

I think what I smell you saying is that since one or two gay marriages are allowed in this or that state, that then those other gays not allowed in said state will sue for equal treatment within their state. Then it will be another case if the SCOTUS doesn't clearly define how each state will have to handle all those peculiar limbo-marriages. I say in order to be fair to the voters of each state and to the gays duped or unrealistic that their "marriages" are valid, they should be demoted to civil unions or other equivalent allowed in each respective state, or simply annulled.

SCOTUS will have to pay very close and very particular attention to how it defines limbo gay marriages after its final say reiterating Windsor. Otherwise as we have seen, rogue officials in CA and other states might via willingness, fear, bribery or blackmail be tempted to defy SCOTUS' 'muddy ruling' and start using "existing" "gay marriages" while all this crap was being appealed with a thousand conflicting stays/denials of stays, allowances, disallowances to shoehorn their will against the Will of the Governed again.

Thanks for making that point WW.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Silhouette can argue forever, but it remains the SCOTUS ruled a private individual has no standing in such matters. And the #1 and the #2 are misreadings of earlier rulings. Polygamy has nothing to do with Amendment 3 from Utah, which is being fast tracked to SCOTUS now. No LGBT cult does not exist. Contraceptives, no marriage equality, was the basis of HL. Therefore, no initiative in California is required at all.

Ah, you're back.

A private individual does have standing to defend their initiative system from the very officials who are undermining it. Pretty much of a giant loophole to create a situation where only the people in the perfect position to perform sedition on this level are the ones to appeal any acts of their own sedition to the US Supreme Court.

I would think that if you made that argument, they'd give that ex parte Young thing a pass and allow voters of California to have emergency intervention to preserve democracy in that state.

The rogue officials/LGBT activists/Mark Leno & cohorts there are simply dismantling the initiative law and telling the voters to go **** themselves. Are you telling me that voters in CA have no redress to save their own democracy from the people who are "the only ones with standing to appeal this sedition to the US Supreme Court"???

Except they don't have standing to appeal, that was the core of Hollingsworth v. Perry:

"We have never before upheld the standing of a private
party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute
when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do
so for the first time here.

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to
demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District
Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to
consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is
vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered'​

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't claim to have an inside track on how the SCOTUS will rule (unlike some other posters...).

However...

If such a ruling were made - then that opens a new can of worms and would depend on the action that State attempts to make.

1. If the move is to say that "from this date forward..." no new SSCM's. Then that is one thing.

2. On the other hand if the move is to say invalidate otherwise legal SSCM's that is a whole different kettle of fish under an attempt to apply laws ex post facto, something specifically not allowed under Article IX of the Federal constitution.​

All it really means that instead of a national push for Marriage Equality, the battlegrounds will return to each individual State.

Well, did you hear that SCOTUS in the Hobby Lobby case is now reordering re-hearings of old decisions that were vacated? http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-expanded-are-gays-next-muslims-atheists.html

Which is what I said, it would depend on the ruling (which no one knows what it will be).

And did you read Windsor where they said a state has a right since the founding of the country to say yes or no to gay marriage? [providing the 14th doesn't apply, which it will be found not to for various compelling reasons]?

Nope didn't read that. I read the part where states could say "yes" to SSCM and the Federal government needed to recognize it.

Majority Opinion:

"The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and
restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex
marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a
class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition
and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a
disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status
the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs
all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom
same-sex couples interact, including their own children,
that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of
others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose
overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure
those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to
protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace
this protection and treating those persons as living in
marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is
in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and
its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.​

I also read writings of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (someone one would assume understands the ruling better than you) who said:

But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important
to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court
does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does
not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the
exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define
the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage.​

I think what I smell you saying is that since one or two gay marriages are allowed in this or that state, that then those other gays not allowed in said state will sue for equal treatment within their state. Then it will be another case if the SCOTUS doesn't clearly define how each state will have to handle all those peculiar limbo-marriages. I say in order to be fair to the voters of each state and to the gays duped or unrealistic that their "marriages" are valid, they should be demoted to civil unions or other equivalent allowed in each respective state, or simply annulled.

#1 I don't doubt, if the SCOTUS rules that States can discriminate against homosexuals in terms of Civil Marriage, that there will be challenges under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The weakness though is that the FF&C specifically grants to Congress the power to determine the effect of public acts between States, that they did with DOMA Section 2 - a section of DOMA that was not invalidated in Windsor.

#2 In many States and from a Federal perspective there is no "demotion" (BTW - thanks for admitting that Civil Unions are not equal to Civil Marriage) to Civil Marriages. Many states in the of amendments that were passed barred BOTH Civil Marriages and Civil Unions based on the gender of the couple.

SCOTUS will have to pay very close and very particular attention to how it defines limbo gay marriages after its final say reiterating Windsor. Otherwise as we have seen, rogue officials in CA and other states might via willingness, fear, bribery or blackmail be tempted to defy SCOTUS' 'muddy ruling' and start using "existing" "gay marriages" while all this crap was being appealed with a thousand conflicting stays/denials of stays, allowances, disallowances to shoehorn their will against the Will of the Governed again.

Thanks for making that point WW.

Actually, the fact that a ruling in support of State discrimination would open a can of worms was the point I made.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

..I also read writings of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (someone one would assume understands the ruling better than you) who said:

But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important
to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court
does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does
not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the
exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define
the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage.​

That was a dissenting opinion. There was also a dissent in Lawrence v Texas that said it should go no further. Now look what happened....

Fine when it works the way you want it to. But not fine when it doesn't? Doesn't work that way. If you believe in equality then you believe that Windsor's majority Opinion can stretch as far as Lawrence v Texas... And of course the rogue officials in CA know about the appeals pending on Prop 8's identical sibling laws. And they know that if just one of those is Upheld on the grounds that states get to decide, Prop 8 is Upheld as well. Changing initiative law whose status is in limbo without the permission of voters in another initiative is not permissable by law in California.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Majority Opinion:

"The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and
restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex
marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a
class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition
and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a
disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status
the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs
all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom
same-sex couples interact, including their own children,
that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of
others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose
overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure
those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to
protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace
this protection and treating those persons as living in
marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is
in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and
its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.​

I also read writings of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (someone one would assume understands the ruling better than you) who said:

But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important
to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court
does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does
not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the
exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define
the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage.​

..I also read writings of the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (someone one would assume understands the ruling better than you) who said:

But while I disagree with the result to which the majority’s
analysis leads it in this case, I think it more important
to point out that its analysis leads no further. The Court
does not have before it, and the logic of its opinion does
not decide, the distinct question whether the States, in the
exercise of their “historic and essential authority to define
the marital relation,” ante, at 18, may continue to utilize
the traditional definition of marriage.​

That was a dissenting opinion. There was also a dissent in Lawrence v Texas that said it should go no further. Now look what happened....

That was the Chief Justice pointing out what the Majority Opinion said.

Fine when it works the way you want it to. But not fine when it doesn't? Doesn't work that way. If you believe in equality then you believe that Windsor's majority Opinion can stretch as far as Lawrence v Texas... And of course the rogue officials in CA know about the appeals pending on Prop 8's identical sibling laws. And they know that if just one of those is Upheld on the grounds that states get to decide, Prop 8 is Upheld as well. Changing initiative law whose status is in limbo without the permission of voters in another initiative is not permissable by law in California.

#1 It isn't what "I" want, it's the limitation that the Windsor opinion itself says. YOU are the one trying to turn Windsor into something that it's not. It's you that has repeatedly claimed that the Windsor ruling has meant that SSCM is legal in only three states. Something the Windsor decision did not do, since the Windsor decision itself cites 12 States that had legal SSCM at the time of it's writing and under your premise New York (the reference State in the decision) didn't have legal SSCM.

#2 The status of Prop 8 isn't in limbo, it's fixed. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional so it's action was void. Therefore the California legislature is free to adjust Statutory law to conform with the reality that legal SSCM exists in California. If the SCOTUS even decides to take the case in the fall (which we don't know they will) and if they rule that States can discriminate against homosexuals, then the system will adjust to reality at that point.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

#1 It isn't what "I" want, it's the limitation that the Windsor opinion itself says. YOU are the one trying to turn Windsor into something that it's not. It's you that has repeatedly claimed that the Windsor ruling has meant that SSCM is legal in only three states. Something the Windsor decision did not do, since the Windsor decision itself cites 12 States that had legal SSCM at the time of it's writing and under your premise New York (the reference State in the decision) didn't have legal SSCM.

#2 The status of Prop 8 isn't in limbo, it's fixed. Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional so it's action was void. Therefore the California legislature is free to adjust Statutory law to conform with the reality that legal SSCM exists in California. If the SCOTUS even decides to take the case in the fall (which we don't know they will) and if they rule that States can discriminate against homosexuals, then the system will adjust to reality at that point.

#1. And gay marriage isn't what Lawrence v Texas was supposed to be. Gay marriage wasn't what Loving v Virginia was supposed to be. Yet both are repeatedly cited by the church of LGBT to forward The Agenda.

#2. Prop 8 is in limbo because all its identical siblings are on their way to be Decided as legit or not legit via SCOTUS this or next year. And as you know, if one "one man and one woman" law enacted by the voters is Upheld as their right to do so, and the court is currently ordering old vacated decisions to be reheard via Hobby Lobby, then Prop 8 is notified of being on deck by the same Judicial mechanism.

Ergo, the jury really actually factually is still out on Prop 8's definition and who it was who defined it [state's voters]. ie: its essence is on appeal as we speak. That legality is very very much still in quesiton. Going behind the voters' backs in CA to revise or revoke their initiative law before the final word is in, especially so close on the heels of the Hobby Lobby tantrums by the LGBT cult is suspect and indeed is contempt in-advance of an anticipated potential Outcome. And it is a clear violation of state law at the demise of the power of the individual's vote there.

ie: it violates the constitutional rights of each and every one of the citizens of California. Any one of them therefore has standing since the people that normally must represent the state at the SCOTUS level are the very people currently engaged in sedition of those that appear to have no voice at all to preserve their democratic rule.

 

[WorldWatcher]

ie: it violates the constitutional rights of each and every one of the citizens of California. Any one of them therefore has standing since the people that normally must represent the state at the SCOTUS level are the very people currently engaged in sedition of those that appear to have no voice at all to preserve their democratic rule.

You should review the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision again, it was dismissed specifically for the fact that private citizens didn't have standing.

Sorry, you can believe as you wish of course, but your beliefs don't necessarily reflect reality.



Unlike some I can separate personal views how things "should" function, with the reality of how things "do" function. Now you may find this odd, but I think the Governor and AG should have defended the law. It was an initiative passed by the people, as such it deserved a full review - and if need be - a full airing of the legal questions before the SCOTUS. Because the State of California decided not to appeal the ruling the SCOTUS was given room to "punt" on the question and leave it with the final ruling of unconstitutional.


>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silhouette can argue forever, but it remains the SCOTUS ruled a private individual has no standing in such matters. And the #1 and the #2 are misreadings of earlier rulings. Polygamy has nothing to do with Amendment 3 from Utah, which is being fast tracked to SCOTUS now. No LGBT cult does not exist. Contraceptives, no marriage equality, was the basis of HL. Therefore, no initiative in California is required at all.

Ah, you're back.

A private individual does have standing to defend their initiative system from the very officials who are undermining it. Pretty much of a giant loophole to create a situation where only the people in the perfect position to perform sedition on this level are the ones to appeal any acts of their own sedition to the US Supreme Court.

I would think that if you made that argument, they'd give that ex parte Young thing a pass and allow voters of California to have emergency intervention to preserve democracy in that state.

The rogue officials/LGBT activists/Mark Leno & cohorts there are simply dismantling the initiative law and telling the voters to go **** themselves. Are you telling me that voters in CA have no redress to save their own democracy from the people who are "the only ones with standing to appeal this sedition to the US Supreme Court"???

Except they don't have standing to appeal, that was the core of Hollingsworth v. Perry:

"We have never before upheld the standing of a private
party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute
when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do
so for the first time here.

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to
demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District
Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to
consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is
vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

It is so ordered'​

>>>>

Sil believes that a LGBT cult exists so of course Sil believes that SCOTUS does not really mean what it ordered. To wit, no private person has a standing in CA case. Tough that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The assertion that SCOTUS's ruling "violates the constitutional rights of each and every one of the citizens of California" is nonsense, of course.

 

[Silhouette]

...You should review the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision again, it was dismissed specifically for the fact that private citizens didn't have standing....


>>>>

So you think the intent of the Justice system is to tie the hands of the voters behind their backs. That sedition is OK if done by the only people in their state that the Court allows to have standing to appeal for redress? Do you suppose that those seditious rogue officials in California will plead for the voters to revoke or alter the intiative they passed? Or do you suppose the catch-22 those voters are in is something they relish and are taking full advantage of to the demise of democracy itself?

I think if they appealed, you might be surprised... This isn't a matter of standing just on Prop 8 anymore. It's a matter of standing of redress and reasonable standing on the CA initiative system itself.

 

[WorldWatcher]

...You should review the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision again, it was dismissed specifically for the fact that private citizens didn't have standing....


>>>>

So you think the intent of the Justice system is to tie the hands of the voters behind their backs. That sedition is OK if done by the only people in their state that the Court allows to have standing to appeal for redress? Do you suppose that those seditious rogue officials in California will plead for the voters to revoke or alter the intiative they passed? Or do you suppose the catch-22 those voters are in is something they relish and are taking full advantage of to the demise of democracy itself?

I think if they appealed, you might be surprised... This isn't a matter of standing just on Prop 8 anymore. It's a matter of standing of redress and reasonable standing on the CA initiative system itself.

I believe you've said you live in California...


........... Have you filed an appeal and where is it in the process?


......................What is your court date?




>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

...You should review the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision again, it was dismissed specifically for the fact that private citizens didn't have standing....


>>>>

So you think the intent of the Justice system is to tie the hands of the voters behind their backs. That sedition is OK if done by the only people in their state that the Court allows to have standing to appeal for redress? Do you suppose that those seditious rogue officials in California will plead for the voters to revoke or alter the intiative they passed? Or do you suppose the catch-22 those voters are in is something they relish and are taking full advantage of to the demise of democracy itself?

I think if they appealed, you might be surprised... This isn't a matter of standing just on Prop 8 anymore. It's a matter of standing of redress and reasonable standing on the CA initiative system itself.

the courts throw out bad initiatives in California all the time.

No candidate is running on the 'I'm going to go out there and fight for Prop 8 after every court has shot us down" platform.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- Fascism is RW, Foxetcbot. You know, messing with minorities and pandering to greedy idiot corporations...and a ton of bs propaganda for the (mainly racist) chumps.

 

[francoHFW]

Too bad the dupes don't know history- or anything else for that matter- just a pile of Pubcrappe...

 

[Bush92]

Liberal's do not understand the concept of "majority rule, minority rights." Instead they "minority rule and everyone else shut-up." Now, before any socialist out there say "What about the right to gay marriage?" No, the majority said marriage is defined as that union between a man and a woman. This in no way stops you from having gay sex. You are simply not going to be rewarded for it.