Recalling the California Supreme Court Over Proposition 8

Posted 2 CommentsPosted in California Supreme Court, Gay Marriage
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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

Power Line makes the obvious observation as to the consequences of the California Supreme Court overruling a vote of the people on California Propsition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman).

The votes by which the people of California passed Proposition 8, restricting the definition of marriage to a union between a man and a woman, had barely been counted when the ACLU filed a lawsuit. That suit, filed directly with the California Supreme Court, claimed that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in so fundamental a way — i.e., taking important rights away from a minority group — that it amounts to a constitutional revision. As such, the theory goes, the legislature was required to pass it before submitting the matter to the voters.

This kind of argument seems like meat and drink for California’s liberal Supreme Court. But my friend Craig Harrison tells me that if that court once again tells the voters “to go to hell,” he expects recall petitions to be circulated for the judges in question. This is permitted under the California Constitution if signatures can be obtained from 20% of the number of people who voted in the last election. Given the 2008 turnout, it might make sense to submit the petition following the primaries that will occur next year.

The petition would not just pertain to the merits of Prop 8, but also to the fact that the state’s judges will have thumbed their noses at the popular will. Perhaps those judges will consider this risk when they take up the matter.

Paul and John don’t quite have the timing correct as ANY election would be in June 2010 and there are no primary elections scheduled next year in California.

However, Flap does not think the California Supreme Court will throw out the California voters’ wishes. We received an indication of this the other day by Justice Kennard’s actions.

There is no sense in talking about a recall election of the court unless they go off the deep end again.

But, recalled all they would be in 2010.

Previous:

OUTED: A California Democrat Assemblywoman Who SUPPORTED Proposition 8 – Wilmer Amina Carter


California Gay Marriage Proponents Organize Boycott Against San Diego Storage Company Over Proposition 8 Donations

Does California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard’s Vote Yesterday a Good Sign for Proposition 8?

Poll: 3 of 5 in California Say Gay Marriages Before Proposition 8 Should Remain Legal?


Technorati Tags: , ,

Does California Supreme Court Justice Joyce Kennard’s Vote Yesterday a Good Sign for Proposition 8?

Posted 5 CommentsPosted in California Supreme Court, Gay Marriage, Joyce Kennard
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

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: , ,

California Proposition 8 Proponents “Profoundly Gratified” in California Supreme Court Rulings

Posted 17 CommentsPosted in California Supreme Court, Gay Marriage
protect-marriage-logo

Protect Marriage.Com

And, the proponents are confident that Proposition 8 wll be upheld.

The official proponents of Proposition 8 and ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, the campaign committee responsible for its enactment by voters today said it is “profoundly gratified” that the California Supreme Court granted all their requests by agreeing to accept original jurisdiction of three cases challenging the measure’s validity,  granted their request to intervene in the cases as Real Parties in Interest, denied the request of others to delay implementation of Proposition 8, and refused to allow outside groups to directly participate in the litigation.

Flap can count as well.  Three California Supreme Court Justices that opposed gay marriage plus Justice Kennard (who refused to sign the order and voted to deny the petitions) equals four votes upholding the Proposition and the traditional definition of marriage.

Flap bets the final vote will be 6-1 with Moreno dissenting to uphold Proposition 8 simply because a MORON would have to rule this is a revision of the Constitution and not an amendment.

Stay tuned as the briefs are prepared.


Technorati Tags: , ,

California Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Proposition 8 But Denies Stay in Gay Marriage Ban

Posted 7 CommentsPosted in California Supreme Court, Gay Marriage
Yes on prop 8 400

The California Supreme Court agreed to decide today the legality of California’s Proposition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) to the California Constitution.

At the urging of both sponsors and opponents of Proposition 8, the justices granted review of lawsuits challenging the Nov. 4 initiative. Approved by 52 percent of the voters, Prop. 8 restored the definition of marriage – a union of a man and a woman – that the court had overturned May 15.

In today’s order, the justices let Prop. 8 remain in effect, denying a stay that would have allowed county clerks to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the case was decided. No hearing has been scheduled.

But, a stay was DENIED, meaning gay marriage in California remains banned.

The order is here. (Pdf)

In other items of interest in the order:

  • The motions to intervene in the cases by Proposition 8 Official Proponents et. al. are GRANTED.
  • Briefs are due on or before December 19, 2008. Replies by January 5, 2009.
  • The issues to be argued and briefed:
  1. Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to the California Constitution? (see Cal. Const.,art.XVIII, §§ 1-4.)
  2. Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
  3. If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?
  • Amicus curiae brief application and brief are due on or before January 15, 2009. Reply to amicus curae brief is due January 21, 2009.
  • Justice Moreno joins the order but voted to stay proposition 8.
  • 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.
Gay Marriage

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

Justices supporting the overturn of the original gay marriage ban are:

  • Chief Justice Ronald George
  • Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar
  • Justice Joyce L. Kennard
  • Justice Carlos R. Moreno

Chief Justice George and Justice Moreno stand for reconfirmation to another twelve year term of office in November 2010.

Justices dissenting from the original decision to end the gay marriage ban are:

  • Justice Marvin Baxter
  • Justice Carol Corrigan
  • Justice Ming Chin

The original May 2008 decision which California Propsoition 8 overturned by Constitutional amendment  is here.(Pdf)

Stay tuned…..


Technorati Tags: , ,

California Supreme Court Challenge Filings for Proposition 8 – The Links

Posted Posted in California Supreme Court, Gay Marriage
Yes on prop 8 400

The California Supreme Court legal challenge to Proposition 8

The links:

S168047
KAREN L. STRAUSS, et al., Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.



S168066
ROBIN TYLER, et al., Petitioners v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.



S168078
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.



S168281
ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER, et al., Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, 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 Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George Likens Gay Marriage to Civil Rights Battles

Posted 19 CommentsPosted in California Supreme Court, Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage

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