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

[dcraelin]

NOpe again. The USSC has already denied stays of implementation by Oregon. And ruled that individual citizens not ajudicating their *own* gay marriage in Californiaa do not have standing on Prop 8. And thus, can't appeal any ruling or challenge any ruling.
So its obviously not 'anyone'.
And unlike UT, the CA AG isn't appealing anything, nor is looking for any stay on the issue. You've simply got no one with standing in CA who could appeal the case interested in doing so. There's nothing to 'overrule'. As there have been no 'stays' requested by the State of California for the courts to reject or affirm.
And you can't overrule an imaginary ruling that never happened.

I would argue that a California voter could sue on the grounds of suppression of their civil rights to have their vote counted. If a person's vote's power is being denied to them, whereas in other states that same person on the same law question is being allowed the power of their vote, then a system of oppression/tyranny exists in the state where the voter is arbitrarily excluded from his civil right.

The obvious problem being....there is no right to vote to abrogate the rights of minorities. And the federal judiciary has already ruled that Prop 8 does exactly that....a ruling that went all the way to the USSC and remained intact and authoritative.
As the 'right to vote to abrogate rights of minorities' doesn't exist, then its impossible to violate. Nixing your entire argument. Prop 8 is and remains illegal in the State of California. There are no appeals. There are no stays of implementation submitted to the courts by California. The issue has been adjuciated.
That you don't like the outcome is irrelevant.

That cannot be. And I'll be you could find dozens of SCOTUS case law to cite when appealing to them for redress. There cannot be a legal situation in America where a voter's rights can be stripped from him arbitrarily while those same exact, precisely-exact rights exist for his neighbors in another state.

Then show us. You're insinuations and assumptions of the hypothetical existence of hypothetical cases isn't actually evidence of anything. Just like your insinuations and assumptions of an eventual Supreme Court ruling authorizing Prop 8 doesn't actually have any legal authority today.
Remember, your imagination has no relevance to the rest of us. And certainly none with the courts.
Show us the cases that support your argument. If there are 'dozens and dozens', then it should be remarkably easy for you to find. If so such cases exist, it will be slightly harder.

The SC "punted" on prop 8,.....no definitive ruling exists....cause they came up with a BS argument (like most of their arguments) that the defenders didnt have "standing". Even in this "punt" tho they have perhaps done lasting damage to our Republican(res.publica..the public's business) system of government. Seven million people dont have standing?

The case was brought to federal court under the bogus procedures outlined in ex parte Young a case that was decided as a corrupt favor to powerful Railroad Corporations. Corporations that were the Goldman Sachs, Citibanks of their day. In short they owed the federal judiciary. (see my earlier post today, to see a case of current federal judge idiocy)

The "rights" provision appealed to in these cases, the 14th amendment, contains wording that supposedly gives corporate person-hood. A prominent historian Charles Beard believed it was written as a favor to the RR Corporations. It was the only constitutional amendment that first failed but was "reconsidered" under coercive threat. It is an illegitimate amendment.

 

[Skylar]

The SC "punted" on prop 8,.....no definitive ruling exists....cause they came up with a BS argument (like most of their arguments) that the defenders didnt have "standing". Even in this "punt" tho they have perhaps done lasting damage to our Republican(res.publica..the public's business) system of government. Seven million people dont have standing?

In the case of Prop 8, there is a definitive ruling on the case. The lower court ruling finding it was unconstitutional was left intact and authoritative. Prop 8 is illegal to implement in California. What there isn't is binding precedent on all *other* cases.

As for the issues of standing, their logic was solid: you must be harmed to have standing. No one save a citizen denied marriage under Prop 8 would be harmed by its adjudication. Prop 8 didn't directly impact any of the folks that were trying to support it. And without harm, there's no redress.

The validity of that reasoning can be debated, but the USSC's ruling is authoritative even if you disagree with it.

The case was brought to federal court under the bogus procedures outlined in ex parte Young a case that was decided as a corrupt favor to powerful Railroad Corporations. Corporations that were the Goldman Sachs, Citibanks of their day. In short they owed the federal judiciary. (see my earlier post today, to see a case of current federal judge idiocy)

The process used to bring it to federal court has been accepted as valid by the Federal Judiciary. You disagree with their acceptance. Their acceptance is still legally authoritative.

was the only constitutional amendment that first failed but was "reconsidered" under coercive threat. It is an illegitimate amendment.

[/quote]

So you say. But the courts recognize its legitimacy and have for well over a century plus a generation. All of the issues you raised are essentially irrelevant to the outcome of the ruling, as every thing you insist is 'bogus' or 'illegitimate' is recognized by the courts as valid and applicable. And the federal judiciary trumps your personal opinion on issues of procedure, precedent and jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

 

[Silhouette]

The SC "punted" on prop 8,.....no definitive ruling exists....cause they came up with a BS argument (like most of their arguments) that the defenders didnt have "standing". Even in this "punt" tho they have perhaps done lasting damage to our Republican(res.publica..the public's business) system of government. Seven million people dont have standing?

7 million DO have standing now that SCOTUS just affirmed the law identical to Prop 8 in Utah on the grounds that not to do so would harm the power of democracy in Utah in the interim.

That's a civil rights ruling BTW: the right to have the power of your vote counted. In fact if you had to give it a category among civil rights, it is THE civil right one would always default to while appeals are pending.

And it cannot just apply to Utah...

 

[Skylar]

The SC "punted" on prop 8,.....no definitive ruling exists....cause they came up with a BS argument (like most of their arguments) that the defenders didnt have "standing". Even in this "punt" tho they have perhaps done lasting damage to our Republican(res.publica..the public's business) system of government. Seven million people dont have standing?

7 million DO have standing now that SCOTUS just affirmed the law identical to Prop 8 in Utah on the grounds that not to do so would harm the power of democracy in Utah in the interim.

Says you. The USSC has said that they don't. And the federal judiciary has already ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. A ruling that is fully authoritative and enforcible. Making Prop 8 illegal in California.

There is no 'right to vote to abrogate rights of minorities'. Its impossible to violate a right that doesn't exist.

That's a civil rights ruling BTW: the right to have the power of your vote counted. In fact if you had to give it a category among civil rights, it is THE civil right one would always default to while appeals are pending.

There are no appeals pending on Prop 8. Making your argument about 'pending appeals' moot. Prop 8 was already adjudicated by the federal judiciary, with that ruling going all the way to USSC and remaining intact.

There are no appeals. No standing petitions for a stay. Nothing.

And it cannot just apply to Utah...

Not only can it, it does. The stay applies to the petition being granted unless the court says otherwise. The court extended that stay to *no* other state, no other petition. Meaning it applies only to Utah. You've imagined that it applies to all petitions in every state.

And as always, your imagination has no legal relevance.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The SC "punted" on prop 8,.....no definitive ruling exists....cause they came up with a BS argument (like most of their arguments) that the defenders didnt have "standing". Even in this "punt" tho they have perhaps done lasting damage to our Republican(res.publica..the public's business) system of government. Seven million people dont have standing?

7 million DO have standing now that SCOTUS just affirmed the law identical to Prop 8 in Utah on the grounds that not to do so would harm the power of democracy in Utah in the interim.

That's a civil rights ruling BTW: the right to have the power of your vote counted. In fact if you had to give it a category among civil rights, it is THE civil right one would always default to while appeals are pending.

And it cannot just apply to Utah...

And yet...


............. The SCOTUS...


......................REJECTED a stay request by private citizens from Oregon...


..............................Showing that very point is incorrect.



>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

The SC "punted" on prop 8,.....no definitive ruling exists....cause they came up with a BS argument (like most of their arguments) that the defenders didnt have "standing". Even in this "punt" tho they have perhaps done lasting damage to our Republican(res.publica..the public's business) system of government. Seven million people dont have standing?

In the case of Prop 8, there is a definitive ruling on the case. The lower court ruling finding it was unconstitutional was left intact and authoritative. Prop 8 is illegal to implement in California. What there isn't is binding precedent on all *other* cases.
As for the issues of standing, their logic was solid: you must be harmed to have standing. No one save a citizen denied marriage under Prop 8 would be harmed by its adjudication. Prop 8 didn't directly impact any of the folks that were trying to support it. And without harm, there's no redress. The validity of that reasoning can be debated, but the USSC's ruling is authoritative even if you disagree with it.

The case was brought to federal court under the bogus procedures outlined in ex parte Young a case that was decided as a corrupt favor to powerful Railroad Corporations. Corporations that were the Goldman Sachs, Citibanks of their day. In short they owed the federal judiciary. (see my earlier post today, to see a case of current federal judge idiocy)

The process used to bring it to federal court has been accepted as valid by the Federal Judiciary. You disagree with their acceptance. Their acceptance is still legally authoritative.

was the only constitutional amendment that first failed but was "reconsidered" under coercive threat. It is an illegitimate amendment.

So you say. But the courts recognize its legitimacy and have for well over a century plus a generation. All of the issues you raised are essentially irrelevant to the outcome of the ruling, as every thing you insist is 'bogus' or 'illegitimate' is recognized by the courts as valid and applicable. And the federal judiciary trumps your personal opinion on issues of procedure, precedent and jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

Yes, the Federal Courts can be as two-faced and inconsistent as they want, and have proven to be over history. Many times they have overturned their own opinions. I wouldn't call a lower court ruling definitive, in a legalistic way, until the SC has spoken(and not really even then).

Their opinion on Standing is anything but logical. A court overturning a state's Constitutional amendment gives everyone in the state standing. Erosion of the basic Republican/democratic process harms everyone so gives everyone standing. I believe the more liberal justice Sotomayor agrees with me in that aspect.

 

[jasonnfree]

I told y'all that this fascist cult was getting out of control. They are incrementally turning American democracy on its head. If you think this is something they mean to confine to Califorina, think again. They have used California as their testing grounds for how far they can and will push their agenda at the federal level.

Precedents and unbridled hubris have a funny way of burning out of control like a wildfire.

Fascists. Precedents and unbridled hubris. Wild fires. All this because of people getting married? And we're going to now depend on a supreme court that judges a corporation as a citizen. A citizen that doesn't have a birth certificate just like those kids coming in from central america. Why don't you conservatives get laid, or come out of the closet, which I suspect is your major issue.

 

[Skylar]

The SC "punted" on prop 8,.....no definitive ruling exists....cause they came up with a BS argument (like most of their arguments) that the defenders didnt have "standing". Even in this "punt" tho they have perhaps done lasting damage to our Republican(res.publica..the public's business) system of government. Seven million people dont have standing?

In the case of Prop 8, there is a definitive ruling on the case. The lower court ruling finding it was unconstitutional was left intact and authoritative. Prop 8 is illegal to implement in California. What there isn't is binding precedent on all *other* cases.
As for the issues of standing, their logic was solid: you must be harmed to have standing. No one save a citizen denied marriage under Prop 8 would be harmed by its adjudication. Prop 8 didn't directly impact any of the folks that were trying to support it. And without harm, there's no redress. The validity of that reasoning can be debated, but the USSC's ruling is authoritative even if you disagree with it.

The process used to bring it to federal court has been accepted as valid by the Federal Judiciary. You disagree with their acceptance. Their acceptance is still legally authoritative.

So you say. But the courts recognize its legitimacy and have for well over a century plus a generation. All of the issues you raised are essentially irrelevant to the outcome of the ruling, as every thing you insist is 'bogus' or 'illegitimate' is recognized by the courts as valid and applicable. And the federal judiciary trumps your personal opinion on issues of procedure, precedent and jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

Yes, the Federal Courts can be as two-faced and inconsistent as they want, and have proven to be over history. Many times they have overturned their own opinions. I wouldn't call a lower court ruling definitive, in a legalistic way, until the SC has spoken(and not really even then).

No, what you're arguing is that the federal courts should abandon stare decisis because you don't like a particular piece of precedent. None of your comments have any relevance to the outcome of Prop 8's adjudication, as the courts aren't going to abandon precedent as the basis of their rulings.

Just like they're not going to suddenly abandon the 14th amendment because you don't like it either.

You're getting a little meta for this discussion. As nothing you're insisting 'should be' done will effect the outcome of the case. Nor does your disagreement with a USSC ruling in anyway diminish its legal authority or impact on Prop 8.

 

[dcraelin]

In the case of Prop 8, there is a definitive ruling on the case. The lower court ruling finding it was unconstitutional was left intact and authoritative. Prop 8 is illegal to implement in California. What there isn't is binding precedent on all *other* cases.
As for the issues of standing, their logic was solid: you must be harmed to have standing. No one save a citizen denied marriage under Prop 8 would be harmed by its adjudication. Prop 8 didn't directly impact any of the folks that were trying to support it. And without harm, there's no redress. The validity of that reasoning can be debated, but the USSC's ruling is authoritative even if you disagree with it.
The process used to bring it to federal court has been accepted as valid by the Federal Judiciary. You disagree with their acceptance. Their acceptance is still legally authoritative.

So you say. But the courts recognize its legitimacy and have for well over a century plus a generation. All of the issues you raised are essentially irrelevant to the outcome of the ruling, as every thing you insist is 'bogus' or 'illegitimate' is recognized by the courts as valid and applicable. And the federal judiciary trumps your personal opinion on issues of procedure, precedent and jurisdiction of the federal judiciary.

Yes, the Federal Courts can be as two-faced and inconsistent as they want, and have proven to be over history. Many times they have overturned their own opinions. I wouldn't call a lower court ruling definitive, in a legalistic way, until the SC has spoken(and not really even then).

No, what you're arguing is that the federal courts should abandon stare decisis because you don't like a particular piece of precedent. None of your comments have any relevance to the outcome of Prop 8's adjudication, as the courts aren't going to abandon precedent as the basis of their rulings.
Just like they're not going to suddenly abandon the 14th amendment because you don't like it either.
You're getting a little meta for this discussion. As nothing you're insisting 'should be' done will effect the outcome of the case. Nor does your disagreement with a USSC ruling in anyway diminish its legal authority or impact on Prop 8.

NO I'm simply arguing logic, and right and wrong.....When I say "the Courts can be as inconsistent as they want" what about that tells you I think the court wont get its way? Or that the Olsen Boies wont get their way.....

I've shown how their "precedent" is a pile of crap, and history shows they jettison it as soon as a higher paying clientele reaches them.

Just saw a review of books that says Olson took something like 1.9 million to fight prop 8, out of the goodness of his heart.

a little meta??????

You use a lot of words, a lot of mumbo-jumbo to say nothing you havent said in previous posts. Abrogate must be a word you've fallen in love with.

I notice you didn't include my whole post,... this part:

"Their opinion on Standing is anything but logical. A court overturning a state's Constitutional amendment gives everyone in the state standing. Erosion of the basic Republican/democratic process harms everyone so gives everyone standing. I believe the more liberal justice Sotomayor agrees with me in that aspect."

probably cause I referred to Sotomayor....and of course you have no logical counter-argument....please try to respond without telling me my disagreement with a USSC ruling doesnt in anyway diminish its legal authority..... I know that.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, the Federal Courts can be as two-faced and inconsistent as they want, and have proven to be over history. Many times they have overturned their own opinions. I wouldn't call a lower court ruling definitive, in a legalistic way, until the SC has spoken(and not really even then).

No, what you're arguing is that the federal courts should abandon stare decisis because you don't like a particular piece of precedent. None of your comments have any relevance to the outcome of Prop 8's adjudication, as the courts aren't going to abandon precedent as the basis of their rulings.
Just like they're not going to suddenly abandon the 14th amendment because you don't like it either.
You're getting a little meta for this discussion. As nothing you're insisting 'should be' done will effect the outcome of the case. Nor does your disagreement with a USSC ruling in anyway diminish its legal authority or impact on Prop 8.

NO I'm simply arguing logic, and right and wrong.....When I say "the Courts can be as inconsistent as they want" what about that tells you I think the court wont get its way? Or that the Olsen Boies wont get their way.....

I've shown how their "precedent" is a pile of crap, and history shows they jettison it as soon as a higher paying clientele reaches them.

Just saw a review of books that says Olson took something like 1.9 million to fight prop 8, out of the goodness of his heart.

a little meta??????

You use a lot of words, a lot of mumbo-jumbo to say nothing you havent said in previous posts. Abrogate must be a word you've fallen in love with.

I notice you didn't include my whole post,... this part:

"Their opinion on Standing is anything but logical. A court overturning a state's Constitutional amendment gives everyone in the state standing. Erosion of the basic Republican/democratic process harms everyone so gives everyone standing. I believe the more liberal justice Sotomayor agrees with me in that aspect."

probably cause I referred to Sotomayor....and of course you have no logical counter-argument....please try to respond without telling me my disagreement with a USSC ruling doesnt in anyway diminish its legal authority..... I know that.

The point that you guys are missing is that this is a NEW legal situation. SCOTUS granting Utah's voters the power of their vote in the interim is SCOTUS also granting standing to the 7 million who were disenfranchised from their vote on the same legal question.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, what you're arguing is that the federal courts should abandon stare decisis because you don't like a particular piece of precedent. None of your comments have any relevance to the outcome of Prop 8's adjudication, as the courts aren't going to abandon precedent as the basis of their rulings.
Just like they're not going to suddenly abandon the 14th amendment because you don't like it either.
You're getting a little meta for this discussion. As nothing you're insisting 'should be' done will effect the outcome of the case. Nor does your disagreement with a USSC ruling in anyway diminish its legal authority or impact on Prop 8.

NO I'm simply arguing logic, and right and wrong.....When I say "the Courts can be as inconsistent as they want" what about that tells you I think the court wont get its way? Or that the Olsen Boies wont get their way.....

I've shown how their "precedent" is a pile of crap, and history shows they jettison it as soon as a higher paying clientele reaches them.

Just saw a review of books that says Olson took something like 1.9 million to fight prop 8, out of the goodness of his heart.

a little meta??????

You use a lot of words, a lot of mumbo-jumbo to say nothing you havent said in previous posts. Abrogate must be a word you've fallen in love with.

I notice you didn't include my whole post,... this part:

"Their opinion on Standing is anything but logical. A court overturning a state's Constitutional amendment gives everyone in the state standing. Erosion of the basic Republican/democratic process harms everyone so gives everyone standing. I believe the more liberal justice Sotomayor agrees with me in that aspect."

probably cause I referred to Sotomayor....and of course you have no logical counter-argument....please try to respond without telling me my disagreement with a USSC ruling doesnt in anyway diminish its legal authority..... I know that.

The point that you guys are missing is that this is a NEW legal situation. SCOTUS granting Utah's voters the power of their vote in the interim is SCOTUS also granting standing to the 7 million who were disenfranchised from their vote on the same legal question.

That is incorrect, as usual.

 

[Silhouette]

The point that you guys are missing is that this is a NEW legal situation. SCOTUS granting Utah's voters the power of their vote in the interim is SCOTUS also granting standing to the 7 million who were disenfranchised from their vote on the same legal question.

That is incorrect, as usual.

Define precisely how you came to that conclusion "Paint" [I won't be holding my breath because ad hominem and snark are your usual fare for "lucid rebuttal".]

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The point that you guys are missing is that this is a NEW legal situation. SCOTUS granting Utah's voters the power of their vote in the interim is SCOTUS also granting standing to the 7 million who were disenfranchised from their vote on the same legal question.

That is incorrect, as usual.

Define precisely how you came to that conclusion "Paint" [I won't be holding my breath because ad hominem and snark are your usual fare for "lucid rebuttal".]

The CA fight is over. The SC let the voters decision die because it went against the CA constitution. Utah has standing to appeal, that's all, and the SC is letting it come to them before they do the very same thing, let it die.

 

[Skylar]

NO I'm simply arguing logic, and right and wrong.....When I say "the Courts can be as inconsistent as they want" what about that tells you I think the court wont get its way? Or that the Olsen Boies wont get their way.....

You're demanding that the courts abandon precedent....because you disagree with the precedent. Failing to recognize that's a demand that's simply irrelevant to the outcome of the case because the courts aren't going to abandon the entire concept of stare decisis because you don't like it.

Nothing you're demanding the court do would ever actually happen in a court of law. Once a case has been used as precedent, its use as precedent becomes the basis of its application in future cases. Not the merits of the case itself. And Exparte Young has been used for over a century as precedent in countless cases.

That you disagree with the USSC is utterly meaningless in terms of the case's authority, or its use as precedent since 1908. Your argument has no legal relevance to the ajudication of Prop 8 as the courts will no more ignore a century's worth of legal precedent because you don't like a ruling than they will ignore the 14th amendment because you don't like the amendment.

Rendering your entire argument little more than rhetorical masturbation that has literally nothing to do with the outcome of the Prop 8 case or the outcome of any case argued in the federal judiciary.

As a century's worth of precedent trumps your personal opinion in any court of law. Ending your entire argument.

 

[Skylar]

The point that you guys are missing is that this is a NEW legal situation. SCOTUS granting Utah's voters the power of their vote in the interim is SCOTUS also granting standing to the 7 million who were disenfranchised from their vote on the same legal question.

No, its not. The voters have no standing because they play no role in the enforcement of the law after its passage. You're insisting that they do play a role after voting. And the USSC has explicitly contradicted you on this exactly point. Finding instead that the voters have no special status, no role in the enforcement of these laws of any kind.

The Attorney Generals do. And it is at the discretion of the attorney generals that legal action on these respective marriage prohibitions are pursued. They, like any litigant, has complete discretion over their own litigation strategy.

Ending your entire argument. But it still gets worse. As there's a second layer of wrong that your argument has been doused in.

Prop 8 has been fully adjudicated and found to be unconstitutional by federal judiciary. A ruling that went all the way to the USSC and remained intact and authoritative. There is no USSC ruling that has overruled the Walker court decision. Meaning its still in force and Prop 8 is *still* illegal to enforce in any part of California. Prop 8 remains unconstitutional per the judgement of the federal judiciary.

And the people do not have the right to vote away the rights of minorities. Making the violation of this imaginary 'right' impossible, as you can't violate a right that doesn't exist.

And still it gets worse. As your argument fails a third time

The people of California have the same representation as the people of Utah. The rightfully elected Attorney General has declined to request a stay of implementation in California. While the AG of Utah has. That two AG's disagree doesn't mean there are different degrees of representation. As it is the AG's that are delegated the authority and standing to pursue such legal action by the people....or choose not to. Each is exercising the people's authority.

That you disagree with the choice of the CA AG is irrelevant. As its a choice each AG have the power to make using the people's power delegated to them. Rendering your argument moot again.

Your argument is like a fail layer cake, with one layer of wrong stacked high atop another. With any failure nixing your entire argument.....while your argument fails on all of them.

 

[dcraelin]

NO I'm simply arguing logic, and right and wrong.....When I say "the Courts can be as inconsistent as they want" what about that tells you I think the court wont get its way? Or that the Olsen Boies wont get their way.....

You're demanding that the courts abandon precedent....because you disagree with the precedent. Failing to recognize that's a demand that's simply irrelevant to the outcome of the case because the courts aren't going to abandon the entire concept of stare decisis because you don't like it.
Nothing you're demanding the court do would ever actually happen in a court of law. Once a case has been used as precedent, its use as precedent becomes the basis of its application in future cases. Not the merits of the case itself. And Exparte Young has been used for over a century as precedent in countless cases.
That you disagree with the USSC is utterly meaningless in terms of the case's authority, or its use as precedent since 1908. Your argument has no legal relevance to the ajudication of Prop 8 as the courts will no more ignore a century's worth of legal precedent because you don't like a ruling than they will ignore the 14th amendment because you don't like the amendment.
Rendering your entire argument little more than rhetorical masturbation that has literally nothing to do with the outcome of the Prop 8 case or the outcome of any case argued in the federal judiciary.
As a century's worth of precedent trumps your personal opinion in any court of law. Ending your entire argument.

Sigh, I didnt think you'd be able to. Rehashed verbal sophistry.

I'm not "demanding" the the courts abandon precedent. This is a message board, a forum for debate. Im saying their so-called "precedent" is total bullshit. Sure, it would be nice for them to try and correct bad precedent as USSCs have done in the past, Or perhaps they could consider it in weighing a solution,.. whatever.

I brought up 'ex parte young' also to show hypocrisy of their "reasoning" on standing. Recent "reasoning" that it would be very wise of them to overrule. Sotomayor agrees with me, and so should anyone not wholly absorbed in one issue and one issue alone. People need to step back and see the dangers these cases will cause in other areas and get past a narrow-minded "win" on one issue.

Stare Decisis is largely just an excuse to ignore the logic of the law when the judges personal feelings are inline with a case based on a mistake of the past.

There are other problems with the lower court ruling on prop 8 that I think The USSC court maybe seeing. Glaringly just the obvious common sense truth that the 14th amendment does not address sexual identity and was plainly meant to address racial issues only.

The Utah case is also a glimmer of hope as Silhouette outlines well.

 

[Silhouette]

That is incorrect, as usual.

Define precisely how you came to that conclusion "Paint" [I won't be holding my breath because ad hominem and snark are your usual fare for "lucid rebuttal".]

The CA fight is over. The SC let the voters decision die because it went against the CA constitution. Utah has standing to appeal, that's all, and the SC is letting it come to them before they do the very same thing, let it die.

So you're actually claiming that Utah's one man-one woman law, enacted by a majority vote in Utah, that SCOTUS Upheld in the interim, is viable, while its identical twin in California is "dead"?

I'd say that conclusion is legally-flawed and that now California voters, 7 million of them or just 1, have both standing and redress at the SCOTUS level.

 

[Silhouette]

[
Sigh, I didnt think you'd be able to. Rehashed verbal sophistry.

I'm not "demanding" the the courts abandon precedent. This is a message board, a forum for debate. Im saying their so-called "precedent" is total bullshit. Sure, it would be nice for them to try and correct bad precedent as USSCs have done in the past, Or perhaps they could consider it in weighing a solution,.. whatever.

I brought up 'ex parte young' also to show hypocrisy of their "reasoning" on standing. Recent "reasoning" that it would be very wise of them to overrule. Sotomayor agrees with me, and so should anyone not wholly absorbed in one issue and one issue alone. People need to step back and see the dangers these cases will cause in other areas and get past a narrow-minded "win" on one issue.

Stare Decisis is largely just an excuse to ignore the logic of the law when the judges personal feelings are inline with a case based on a mistake of the past.

There are other problems with the lower court ruling on prop 8 that I think The USSC court maybe seeing. Glaringly just the obvious common sense truth that the 14th amendment does not address sexual identity and was plainly meant to address racial issues only.

The Utah case is also a glimmer of hope as Silhouette outlines well.

Why thank you! Don't you think at the very least that the six states that make up the jurisdiction of the 10th circuit must also default to the civil rights of their voters? After all, in issuing the stay, the SCOTUS effectively overruled the 10th's denial of the stay. And the 10th's reach is not just Utah. It also includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma & Wyoming any one of those states voters' should have now an excellent chance at standing to have their civil right to uphold their vote protected in an emergency appeal to SCOTUS. In all those states any one of the voters would have standing to have their marriage laws upheld in the interim.

One mistake of the past is California and saying that neither registered voters nor a county clerk have standing to seek redress to enforce the power of the state's initiative system while rogue officials charged with representing them at the federal level are systematically and seditiously dismantling initiative law without permission from voters.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Define precisely how you came to that conclusion "Paint" [I won't be holding my breath because ad hominem and snark are your usual fare for "lucid rebuttal".]

The CA fight is over. The SC let the voters decision die because it went against the CA constitution. Utah has standing to appeal, that's all, and the SC is letting it come to them before they do the very same thing, let it die.

So you're actually claiming that Utah's one man-one woman law, enacted by a majority vote in Utah, that SCOTUS Upheld in the interim, is viable, while its identical twin in California is "dead"?

I'd say that conclusion is legally-flawed and that now California voters, 7 million of them or just 1, have both standing and redress at the SCOTUS level.

CA's vote was ruled unconstitutional and the SC let that stand. That's over and done with. They will probably do the same in Utah, but the Utah AG has the standing to appeal so they are waiting for that. We'll see.

 

[Silhouette]

CA's vote was ruled unconstitutional and the SC let that stand. That's over and done with. They will probably do the same in Utah, but the Utah AG has the standing to appeal so they are waiting for that. We'll see.

Nope, the only thing that SCOTUS said about Prop 8 so far was that [in Windsor 2013] states have the "unquestioned authority" on defining marriage under the question of gay marriage and more recently [Utah stay July 18, 2014], the power of the state's voters [and their civil right to democracy rule] takes precedent in the interim over any claim that gays have a supposed "civil right to gay marriage".

Try not to lie next time.