CA Attorney General Brown asks state Supreme Court to void gay-marriage ban

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by EricNau, Dec 19, 2008.

  1. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #1
    Link
     
  2. Beric macrumors 68020

    Beric

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #2
    Showed this article to my Dad, and he said, "You never could trust Jerry Brown. I didn't trust him when he was governor, and still don't trust him now."

    EDIT:
    link

    Thought that article actually defined us fairly.
     
  3. EricNau thread starter Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #3
    As unenlightened? :p
     
  4. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #4
    I'm...surprised, excited, and feeling positive about this again. :eek:

    The question is, is the Yes on 8 Campaign going to be arguing in court alone now? Is Jerry Brown going to be against them, or is he going to be a "friend of the Court" only?

    So many uncertainties...
     
  5. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #5
    Erm, the CA Supreme Court is appointed and doesn't have to be elected, correct? There's a reason that, at the federal level, the Supreme Court is far removed from the democratic process. It's to prevent "tyranny of the majority", which can, and has, led to minorities (of all sorts) being denied rights.
    It still amazes me that CA's voter initiative allows constitutional amendments to pass with only a simple majority (CA people, do you know if it would pass with only a plurality? That would be even worse). Compare that to the US constitution, which requires 3/4 of all state legislatures.
     
  6. EricNau thread starter Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #6
    It's complicated; they are appointed by the governor, however, are then "confirmed by the public" during the next general election. Every 12 years they are subject to a vote of the people.

    Can you have a plurality for a Constitutional amendment? It's either a yes or no vote; one side has to have a "majority."
     
  7. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
  8. EricNau thread starter Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #8
    I'm afraid that might become confusing, given how both stories are polar opposites. Additionally, since the stories weren't conjoined from the beginning, it may not be clear which comments apply to which story.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Well, at least this is good news. How could they possibly let this stand? Whose rights would be next to be voted away?
     
  10. EricNau thread starter Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #10
    Hopefully the religious. ;)

    ...I'm kidding, I'm kidding. Please don't crucify me. :rolleyes:
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    Ugh- it's tempting, but I would never do that. I wish they would extend us the same courtesy.
     
  12. és: macrumors 6502a

    és:

    #12
    Well, if you want to infringe on people's liberty, then it appears you were right.
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    The whole idea of compelling a mass divorce between legally married couples is surely too grotesque to be enacted. The law should at least try to avoid being asinine.
     
  14. stevento macrumors 6502

    stevento

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #14
    his request shouldn't hold any more weight than any other citizen requesting the same thing.
     
  15. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
    #15
    Should a judge's opinion hold no more weight than an average person either's?
     
  16. EricNau thread starter Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #16
    The Attorney General of California is elected by the people as "the chief law officer of the State" and the chair of the Department of Justice.

    The position is not unlike those of the Supreme Court Justices; one is assigned to enforce and administer the constitution, while the others are entrusted with the task of interpreting the constitution. It makes a great deal of sense that the Supreme Court would consider the Attorney General's views when deciding matters pertaining to the state Constitution. He is, essentially, the State's lawyer.

    Since both are elected officials charged to protect and uphold the Constitution, I see no reason why the Attorney General's interpretation shouldn't hold some weight in court.
     
  17. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #17
    IMO, the American ppl are not competent enough to vote on something like making gay marriage legal. It should be left to the officials to decide.
     
  18. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #18
    you mean like president Bush? or even president Obama?
     
  19. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #19
    Unless you are a lawyer that knows constitutional law I don't think anyone can make a proper decision.
     
  20. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #20
    even the lawyers disagree
     
  21. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #21
    I'm talking about a lawyer that has spent years studying the constitution that might have the most knowledge to interpret the founding fathers.
     
  22. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #22
    that's what I was talking about too......any discussion of what the constitution says about anything always has a group of those learned legal experts on both sides of the issue
     

Share This Page