Flap's Blog – FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

California Supreme Court Justices, from top left, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin Baxter and from lower left, Ming Chin, Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Carol Corrigan

In yesterday’s post about the California Supreme Court accepting California’s Proposition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) to the California Constitution for review, Flap briefly mentioned the fact that Justice Kennard did NOT sign the order.

From the order:

Justice Kennard would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in this court of an appropriate action to determine Proposition 8’s effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before Proposition 8’s adoption.

Justice Kennard, in fact, voted against reviewing the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

Why?

While both sides cheered the court’s decision to take up the cases, Kennard’s lone vote to deny review could spell trouble for opponents of Prop. 8.

Kennard is the court’s longest-serving justice, having been appointed in 1989, and has been one of its foremost supporters of same-sex couples’ rights. Without her vote, the May 15 ruling would have gone the other way. But she wrote Wednesday that she would favor hearing arguments only about whether Prop. 8 would invalidate the pre-election marriages, an issue that would arise only if the initiative were upheld.

“It’s always hard to read tea leaves, but I think Justice Kennard is saying that she thinks the constitutionality of Prop. 8 is so clear that it doesn’t warrant review,” said Stephen Barnett, a retired UC Berkeley law professor and longtime observer of the court.

For those seeking to overturn Prop. 8, “I would not think it would be encouraging,” said Dennis Maio, a San Francisco lawyer and former staff attorney at the court.

Flap thinks the court ultimately will support California’s voters and uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8. Flap predicts a 6-1 vote with Justice Moreno dissenting.

Justice Kennard has sent a message to her fellow Justices yesterday that she plans to uphold Prop. 8.

Or did she?

Stay tuned……

---

Technorati Tags: Joyce Kennard, California Supreme Court, California Proposition 8

The California Supreme Court

This puff piece in the Los Angeles Times in almost enough to make Flap GAG.

But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left “quite an indelible impression on me,” he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.

“I think,” he concluded, “there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe.”

Yet he described his thinking on the constitutional status of state marriage laws as more of an evolution than an epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.

Talk about legislating from the bench.

Your honor, we don’t care about your “feelings” on the matter. Interpret the law according to the California Constitution.

What does the text of the California Constitution mean?

Flap predicts Chief Justice George will either retire prior to a confirmation election in 2010 or he will be thrown out of office by the wrath of California voters.

Previous:

California Gay Marriage Ruling Fuels Political Battle

California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban – The Response

California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

The Ryskind Sketchbook

Thursday’s ruling by the California Supreme Court overturning a ban on gay marriage previously passed by a vote of the California electorate has fueled a political firestorm.

Just hours after the California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, Mathew D. Staver was already raising money to overturn the decision.

Mr. Staver, the founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, a Florida group that defends traditional marriage, flew to Dallas on Thursday night for a late dinner meeting with a fund-raiser. The topic was how to finance a campaign for the California Marriage Protection Act, a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution and effectively undo the court’s decision.

“I flew to Dallas to discuss this specific issue,” said Mr. Staver, who had several trips on similar business planned in the coming week. “And we talked until the early morning hours.”

Such late-night strategy sessions will probably become common as those on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue start what they anticipate to be a protracted and expensive battle.

The Evangelical Right from across the United States will help fund the campaign and the Christian churches will turn out their members to vote in record numbers.

Look for Hispanic voters to turn out to vote for the California Initiative and Consitutional Amendment 07-0098 as the Catholic Church weighs into the political fray. At the same time, they will cast their Presidential ballots for John McCain or against African-American Barack Obama.

An expensive social issue campaign will excite the electorate and drive the turn-out of massive numbers of the RIGHT voters.

The moribund California GOP must be licking their chops at the prospects.

Previous:

California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban – The Response

California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

California Supreme Court Justices, from top left, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin Baxter and from lower left, Ming Chin, Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Carol Corrigan

With today’s California Supreme Court ruling overturning a ban on gay marriage, the reaction and response has been swift and pointed.

From the Left:

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Los Angeles
We are delighted with today’s State Supreme Court ruling allowing marriage equality in California. It is a true testament to advancing equality and to recognizing the right of all Californians to build a future with the person they love. We recently lost Mildred Loving, the woman whose marriage to a man of another race ushered in the Supreme Court ruling that made marriage colorblind. Today’s ruling is another important reminder that love will overcome.

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland:
I’m glad the Supreme Court validated what I consider a fundamental premise of our nation – that all people deserve equal protection under the law. This is a happy and historic day because all Californians, regardless of sexual orientation, now have the right to marry.

Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party:
The California Supreme Court’s ruling is a momentous decision for our state and nation that marks a giant step toward in our march toward true equality for all our citizens.

We all owe Mayor Gavin Newsom a debt of gratitude for his visionary leadership on this crucial civil rights issue, along with the courageous plaintiffs in this case.

But our march for justice and equality is far from over. We now must re-focus our efforts on fighting the divisive and discriminatory proposed constitutional amendment that would take away marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Working together, we can ensure that once again, justice and equality will prevail.

From the Right:

Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines, R-Clovis:
I am very disappointed that the California Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, would allow their own personal partisan views to get in the way of their duty to uphold the rule of law by thwarting the will of the overwhelming majority of Californians who voted in support of Proposition 22.

Fortunately, more than 1 million Californians have signed ballot petitions to place a constitutional amendment before the voters this November that will write into the state Constitution that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I am confident that the people of California will again overwhelmingly vote to preserve and protect traditional marriage.

I hope that once this constitutional amendment becomes law in November, the Supreme Court will resume its appropriate role of interpreting the law, and stop legislating from the bench.

Senate Republican leader Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto:
California voters spoke loud and clear that they believe marriage is between a man and a woman. This disappointing ruling gives activist judges a louder voice than the people of this great state. A constitutional amendment to overturn this ruling will now undoubtedly qualify for the ballot, giving Californians another opportunity to maintain the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

Ron Nehring, chairman of California Republican Party:
Once again, the California Supreme Court has substituted its own will for the will of the people, this time with its controversial decision discarding the mandate for traditional marriage granted with Proposition 22 and thrusting this issue back into the national spotlight. Support for traditional marriage transcends partisanship.

The state Republican Party has consistently supported traditional marriage and Proposition 22. In September, the state committee will formally take a position on the November initiative reversing this ruling by state constitutional amendment.

So, where does the issue go from here. In a few weeks the California Secretary of State will either certify the California Initiative and Consitutional Amendment 07-0098 or not. More than 1.1 million signatures of California voters have been submitted to place the issue of gay marriage before the general election electorate.

When certified this initiative/constitutional amendment, the California Marriage Protection Act will go before voters in November. If the California Marriage Protection Act passes the gay marriage ban will once more be the law of California. Marriage will be defined as between a man and a woman.

But, there is more.

Flap heard today on the Hugh Hewitt Show that there will be a concerted effort by the Evangelical Right and others to recall the three Supreme Court Justices up for a reconfirmation vote in 2010 (even though one dissented in today’s opinion)

Here is the organizational chart as to when California Supreme Court Justices come up for reconfirmation. Each Justice serves a twelve year term, unless appointed midterm of another Justice.

Two of the three California Supreme Court Justices, Chief Justice Ronald George and Associate Justice Carlos Moreno will be undoubtedly be the focus of a 2010 recall or anti-reconfirmation action. But, like with the Rose Bird recall “clean sweep” over the issue of the California Death Penalty, Associate Justice Ming Chin will probably be a target as well. It will be hard to protect him from the wrath of the voters.

Flap has faith in the People of California to RIGHT the actions of four rogues justices who have abrogated the will of California voters.

Dan Weintraub has the take on the prospects of the coming fall election.

Flap will be voting and campaigning for the California Marriage Protection Act and also supporting the non re-confirmation of Justices George and Moreno.

Stay tuned as the election begins to take shape in the coming weeks.

Previous:
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban