-
California Supreme Court Challenge Filings for Proposition 8 – The Links
The California Supreme Court legal challenge to Proposition 8The links:
S168047
KAREN L. STRAUSS, et al., Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.- Immediate Stay Request
- Petitioner’s Exhibits
- Petitioner’s Motion for Judicial Notice
- Amended Petition
- Motion to Intervene
- Motion to Intervene by Official Proponents
- Official Proponents Opposition to Motion by Campaign
- Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene
- Request for Judicial Notice
- Preliminary Opposition
- Preliminary Response from the Attorney General
- Letters submitted in support of petition:
The Bar Association of San Francisco et al.
Forty-Four Members of the State Legislature
Anti-Defamation League et al.
Beverly Hills Bar Association et al.
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Sacramento Lawyers for Equality of Gays and Lesbians et al.
Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez
Constitutional Law Center (Monterey College of Law)
Hastings College of the Law
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein
Richards, Watson, & Gershon
The Ecumenical Catholic Church
Donna M. Ryu (Hastings College of the Law) - Letters requesting denial of petition and request for stay:
The Pacific Justice Institute
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Chapman University Law)
Steven Meiers
Kingdom of Heaven
American Center for Law and Justice
S168066
ROBIN TYLER, et al., Petitioners v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.- Immediate Stay Request
- Amended Petition
- Motion to Intervene
- Motion to Intervene by Official Proponents
- Official Proponents Opposition to Motion by Campaign
- Preliminary Opposition
- Preliminary Response from the Attorney General
- Debra Bowen’s Preliminary Response
- Letter from counsel for petitioners in response to letter submitted by Pacific Justice League
- Letters submitted in support of petition:
Beverly Hills Bar Association et al.
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Sacramento Lawyers for Equality of Gays and Lesbians et al.
Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez
Constitutional Law Center (Monterey College of Law) - Letters requesting denial of petition and request for stay:
The Pacific Justice Institute
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Chapman University Law)
American Center for Law and Justice
S168078
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.- Petition for Writ of Mandate
- Amended Petition
- Motion to Intervene
- Motion to Intervene by Official Proponents
- Official Proponents Opposition to Motion by Campaign
- Judicial Notice
- Preliminary Opposition
- Preliminary Response from the Attorney General
- Letters submitted in support of petition:
Beverly Hills Bar Association et al.
Los Angeles County Bar Association
Sacramento Lawyers for Equality of Gays and Lesbians et al.
Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez
Constitutional Law Center (Monterey College of Law) - Letters requesting denial of petition and request for stay:
The Pacific Justice Institute
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Chapman University Law)
American Center for Law and Justice
S168281
ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER, et al., Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.- Petition for Writ of Mandate
- Motion to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice
- Motion by Campaign to Intervene
- Letter submitted in support of petition:
Sacramento Lawyers for Equality of Gays and Lesbians et al.
S168302
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND CALIFORNIA WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.
S168332
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, et al., Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.Flap will update as the cases proceed.
Technorati Tags: California Proposition 8, Gay Marriage
-
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George Likens Gay Marriage to Civil Rights Battles
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
-
California Gay Marriage Ruling Fuels Political Battle
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.â€
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 Overturns Gay Marriage Ban – The Response
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
-
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
Winning Plaintiffs & attorney in CA Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage decision. Rev. Troy Perry & husband Phillip Ray De Blieck, Robin Tyler & Diane Olson and their attorney Gloria Allred holding Baby Milo Reifsnyder-Smith, son of 2 gay dads
A split (4-3 decision) California Supreme Court this morning overturned the ban on Gay Marriage that California voters approved by a 61% majority in 2000 in the California Defense of Marriage Act.
The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
The issue may be settled to the glee of California homosexual rights organizations today but 27 states have constitutional bans on the practice. And, this fall, California voters may be asked again to weigh into the fray with the California Initiative and Consitutional Amendment 07-0098, should it qualify for the ballot.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has already stated he will not support the initiative. But, the Evangelical Right, conservative organizations and other churches will view this as a direct assault against marriage and the family.
Stay tuned for a heated campaign that may very well decide the Presidency by driving turnout of Christian RIGHT voters.
-
California Supreme Court Watch: Websites NOT Liable for Libel in Third-Party Postings
Carol A. Corrigan, left, smiles while being sworn in by Supreme Court of California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, right, as an associate justice to the Supreme Court of California in San Francisco, Wednesday Jan. 4, 2006. Corrigan was selected by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to succeed Janice Rogers Brown, the seven-member court’s most conservative judge, and only black member. Brown resigned June 30 after the U.S. Senate confirmed her to a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia.
CNET News: Calif. court ruling seeks to protect bloggers, Web publishers
In a victory for bloggers, newsgroup participants and other Web publishers, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that individual Internet users cannot be held liable for republishing defamatory statements written by others.
The unanimous ruling appears to be the first to make clear that a 1996 law called the Communications Decency Act protects not only providers, but also users of online services who redistribute content. Earlier court rulings had established that Section 230 of that statute shields companies such as AOL and eBay from such liability, provided that they make good faith efforts to restrict access to material that could be considered “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”
By passing that law, Congress “has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users,” intending “to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation,” the justices concluded in their majority opinion (click for PDF) penned by Associate Justice Carol Corrigan.
Another victory for freedom of expression and open access to information in the internet age..
Flap is glad he made the RIGHT choice and voted earlier this month to confirm Justice Corrigan (heh, it was a unanimous opinion).
The justices acknowledged that “recognizing broad immunity for defamatory republications on the Internet has some troubling consequences.” But unless Congress revises the law, anyone who claims to be defamed by an Internet posting may seek damages only from the “original source of the statement,” they wrote.
Indeed and as it should be unless publishers conspire with the originators of libelous content.
Volokh has more here.
A long line of cases had already held that when a user posts material on a site, the operator of the site (or of the computer), can’t be held liable, even when it’s notified of the potentially tortious nature of the activity. Thus, for instance, we wouldn’t be liable for libels posted in our comments. But this case, as well as Batzel and some others, apply this principle even to immunize those who actively repost material, rather than just serve as passive conduits for what others post. This means that if a commenter posts excerpts from others’ work, even the commentator himself would be categorically immune from liability for the contents of those excerpts, at least unless he’s “active[ly] involve[d] in the creation of [the] posting,” or unless he’s conspiring with the original author.
Note that when I say “immune from liability” or “can’t be held liable,” this is shorthand for “immune from liability except under intellectual property law, communications privacy law, or federal criminal law,” see 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(1).
Update:
Justin Levine has more here.
Wizbang does as well.
But, Michelle Malkin dissents:
But aren’t bloggers the ones arguing that we should be treated like MSM journalists? Isn’t that what the Apple vs. bloggers case was all about? Remember? Seems to me that some bloggers want to enjoy the benefits of MSM status (fighting for the same coverage as traditional journalists under shield laws, as in the Apple case), but avoid the consequences (getting sued if they re-publish defamatory material online).
Strictly speaking, Barrett v. Rosenthal applies only to those who re-publish defamatory statements. It does not apply to the author of the original defamatory post. Anyone who wants to immunize himself from liability, however, can easily bypass that limitation by posting the original defamatory statement anonymously (for example, from a public library or Kinko’s or by using an anonymizer such as Torpark) then re-publishing it under his or her own name. Those savvy enough to game the system in this way will be able to libel their enemies with impunity.
As one commenter at Volokh points out, “This [ruling] is not a victory for free speech, which was already protected; it is a victory for the perpetrators of libel and slander.”
Stay tuned ……
Technorati Tags: California SupremeCourt, CarolCorrigan, BarrettvRosenthal
-
Michael Angelo Morales Watch: Execution Tonight?
******UPDATE******AP is reporting that the 9th United States Circuit Court of Appeals says the State of California has postponed the Morales execution INDEFINITELY.
Los Angeles Times: Killer’s Execution Is Postponed Indefinitely
The state has indefinitely postponed Tuesday’s planned execution of convicted killer Michael Morales because of a court battle and medical ethics questions surrounding the method of lethal injection.
The state notified federal court officials that it is unable to comply with a judge’s order to have a lethal overdose of barbiturate administered to Morales by a medical professional in the execution chamber, a spokeswoman for the federal courts told The Associated Press.
Morales, 46, was supposed have died at 12:01 a.m. at San Quentin State Prison for torturing, raping and murdering a 17-year-old girl 25 years ago. But it was delayed until at least Tuesday night because the anesthesiologists objected that they might have to advise the executioner if the inmate woke up or appeared to suffer pain.
Prison officials planned to press forward with the execution on Tuesday night, skipping the usual paralyzing and heart-stopping drugs and killing him with an overdose of a sedative.
ASSociated Press: Calif. Execution Faces Indefinite Delay
The execution of a condemned killer was postponed early Tuesday after two anesthesiologists refused for ethical reasons to take part, and attorneys pursued a new round of court challenges that could delay the execution indefinitely.
Previously on Flap: Michael Angelo Morales Watch: Execution Delayed by Doctor Walk Out
So, what is the FLAP with the anesthesiologists walking out?
The apparent sticking point was the physicians’ obligation, under procedures specified by a federal appeals court in a ruling Sunday, to intervene if Morales appeared to regain consciousness or displayed signs of pain. The court said the anesthesiologists would then have to take steps to render the inmate unconscious or “otherwise alleviate the painful effects” of the drugs.
“Any such intervention would clearly be medically unethical,” the doctors said in a written statement today. “As a result, we have withdrawn from participation in this current process.”
So, the 9th Circuit essentially ordered the physicians to kill Morales if they thought he regained consciousness and/or was suffering. The original order by federal judge Jeremy Fogel was inane and was biased towards delay. Fogel ordered:
1. Fogel said state authorities can postpone the execution that’s set for next Tuesday and defend their current procedure in a two-day court hearing, starting May 2.
2. The State of California can substitute a barbiturate or combination of barbiturates for the three-drug series they currently plan on using.
3. The State of California can station an experienced anesthesiologist in the execution chamber to verify that Morales is unconscious when he’s supposed to be.
Now, San Quentin State Prison’s warden rescheduled the execution for tonight at 7:30 PM using option 2 as ordered.
Prison officials planned to press forward with the execution Tuesday night using the second option.
The judge approved that decision later Tuesday, but said the sedative must be administered by a person who is licensed by the state to inject medications intravenously, a group that includes doctors, nurses and other medical technicians.
Morales’ lawyers planned to appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They also asked the California Supreme Court to block the execution.
The state’s conduct “is offensive to a decent respect for human dignity and repugnant to the conscience of mankind,” attorney David Senior Wrote.
State officials said they were unsure whether they would proceed.
Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Attorney General Bill Lockyer, said prosecutors and prison officials were meeting to determine whether to go forward with the execution and “to consider other options.”
Flap is waiting to report any rulings from the 9th Circuit or California Supreme Court.
Stay tuned…….
Previous:
Michael Angelo Morales Watch: Execution Delayed by Doctor Walk Out
Michael Angelo Morales Watch: United States Supreme Court Refuses to Halt Morales Execution
Michael Angelo Morales Watch: California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Denies Clemency Petition
Michael Angelo Moreno Watch: State Agrees to Place Anesthesia Expert in Death Chamber
Michael Angelo Morales Watch: Federal Judge May Delay Execution
Michael Angelo Morales Watch: Ventura County Judge Asks California Governor Schwarzenegger for Clemency
Michael Angelo Morales Watch: Kenneth Starr to Assist Death Row Clemency Bid
Technorati Tags: MichaelAngeloMorales,, ArnoldSchwarzenegger,, California,, KennethStarr,, TerriLynnWinchell,, LethalInjection
-
Global War on Terror Watch: Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Says He was “Blindsided”
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa listens to a question about President Bush’s immigration policies, as he comments on Bush’s State of the Union address Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2006, outside the mayor’s official residence, the Getty House, in Los Angeles. Villaraigosa, in a nationally televised Spanish-language speech, faulted the White House Tuesday for policies he said pushed more Americans into poverty and failed to address a crisis in education.
ASSociated Press: L.A. Mayor Blindsided by Bush Announcement
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Thursday he was blindsided by President Bush’s announcement of new details on a purported 2002 hijacking plot aimed at a downtown skyscraper, and described communication with the White House as “nonexistent.”
“I’m amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels,” the mayor told The Associated Press. “I don’t expect a call from the president — but somebody.”
“I go to work every day knowing that we are a target,” Villaraigosa said.
The mayor said homeland security needs better funding, including for the protection of high-risk targets in Los Angeles. He said some funding could be redirected from the war in Iraq, but he did not advocate an immediate withdrawal of troops.
Mayor AV is whining……after your partisan comments on the President’s State of the Union address what do you expect?
RESPECT?
No way……..
Mayor AV you can do better……..
Technorati Tags: MayorAntonioVillaraigosa, GlobalWaronTerror, PresidentGeorgeWBush, AlQaeda, Terrorism, LosAngeles
-
California Supreme Court Watch: Judge Corrigan Confirmed and Sworn Onto California Supreme Court
Carol A. Corrigan, left, smiles while being sworn in by Supreme Court of California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, right, as an associate justice to the Supreme Court of California in San Francisco, Wednesday Jan. 4, 2006. Corrigan was selected by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to succeed Janice Rogers Brown, the seven-member court’s most conservative judge, and only black member. Brown resigned June 30 after the U.S. Senate confirmed her to a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia.
San Francisco Chronicle: Corrigan sworn in to California Supreme Court
Appellate Judge Carol A. Corrigan, a former prosecutor, was sworn in Wednesday to the California Supreme Court after being confirmed to replace the most conservative justice on the state’s highest court.
Corrigan, 57, who until her confirmation was on the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, is a former trial judge and Alameda County prosecutor and was elevated to the appeals court in 1994 by former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson after changing her voter registration from Democrat to Republican.
Immediately after her confirmation, she told reporters she was a “centrist,” that she could not discuss upcoming cases and said judges “do not own the law.”
“Generally, Americans think everybody should be equal before the law,” she said, noting she changed her party affiliation to Republican because it was a more “accurate” designation of her political beliefs.
Congratulations to Justice Corrigan.
By the way, she stands for confirmation by California voters in November.
Previous:
California Supreme Court Watch: Judge Corrigan Rated “Well Qualifiedâ€
California Supreme Court Watch: Schwarzenegger Names Carol A. Corrigan to High CourtTechnorati Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carol Corrigan, California Supreme Court, Janice Rogers Brown, Ronald George, Bill Lockyer, Joan Dempsey Klein, Commission on Judicial Appointments
-
California Supreme Court Watch: Judge Corrigan Rated “Well Qualified”
The ASSociated Press has Judicial vetters hang high rating on court hopeful
A judicial vetting committee of the State Bar is ranking California Supreme Court nominee Justice Carol A. Corrigan with the second-highest rating the panel offers, according to documents released yesterday.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nominated Corrigan, a San Francisco appeals court justice, to the state’s highest court Dec. 9 to fill the vacancy on the seven-member court created when Justice Janice Rogers Brown resigned to fill a federal judicial post in the District of Columbia.
The Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation, which consists largely of attorneys in various practices, told Schwarzenegger that, after reviewing her extensive record as an Alameda County prosecutor, trial judge and appellate judge, that she was “well qualified” for the Supreme Court post. The highest ranking is “exceptionally well qualified.”
“Justice Corrigan is brilliant, decisive, articulate, courteous, compassionate, collegial and (a) scholarly bench officer with a solid grasp of varied and complex criminal and civil law issues,” wrote commission chairman Todd Irby.
Judge Corrigan has impressive credentials:
Judicial and Professional Positions: Associate Justice, 1994 – Present (Appointed 1994; confirmed by voters, 1994). Judge, Alameda County Superior Court 1991-1994 (Appointed 1991; elected by voters. 1992). Judge, Oakland, Emeryville Piedmont Judicial District 1987-1991 (Appointed, 1987; elected by voters, 1988). Senior Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County 1985-1987; Deputy District Attorney, same county, 1975-1985.Professional Activities: California Judicial Council, 1997-present. Judicial Council Task Force on Jury Instructions, 1997-present (Chair). Commission on Future of California’s Courts 1991-1994. Center for Judicial Education & Research, Governing Board, 1994-1997. President’s Commission on Organized Crime, 1983-1986. Special Consultant, President’s Task Force on Victims of Violent Crime, 1982. Adjunct Professor of Law: U.C. Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1984-1987, 1990-1994; U.C. Hastings College of Law, 1981-1987, 1989; University of San Francisco School of Law, 1988-1990; University of Puget Sound School of Law, 1981. Faculty: California Judicial College, 1988-present; Continuing Judicial Studies Programs, 1989-present; National Institute of Trial Advocacy, 1981-present (Distinguished Faculty Award, 1997).
Community Involvement: Board of Directors: Holy Names College 1988-present (Chair, 1990-present); Saint Vincent’s Day Home, 1982-present (Chair, 1991-present); Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay, 1985-1989.Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Holy Names College, 1970 (Student Body President, Founder’s Medal). J.D., Univ. of California, Hastings College of the Law, 1975 (Law Journal, Note and Comment Editor). Doctoral program, Clinical Psychology, Saint Louis University, 1970-1972.
Personal: Born: August 16, 1948, Stockton, California.
Her nomination will be considered Wednesday by the state Commission on Judicial Appointments, consisting of Chief Justice Ronald George, Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the state’s senior presiding appellate justice, Joan Dempsey Klein of Los Angeles. If confirmed, Corrigan would join the court for arguments the following week.
Governor Schwarzenegger has made a solid choice for the California Supreme Court. Corrigan is a moderate but NOT an activist/ideologue and sometimes that is what you want on the bench.
Previous:
California Supreme Court Watch: Schwarzenegger Names Carol A. Corrigan to High CourtTechnorati Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carol Corrigan, California Supreme Court, Janice Rogers Brown, Ronald George, Bill Lockyer, Joan Dempsey Klein, Commission on Judicial Appointments