Comments on: CA Supreme Court Rumored to Be Announcing Decision on Prop 8 Tomorrow http://aworldofprogress.com/ca-supreme-court-rumored-to-be-announcing-decision-on-prop-8-tomorrow/ an online magazine for the Progressive Human Sun, 14 Mar 2010 01:05:21 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Hahn at Home http://aworldofprogress.com/ca-supreme-court-rumored-to-be-announcing-decision-on-prop-8-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-853 Hahn at Home Wed, 20 May 2009 23:24:14 +0000 http://awop.nfshost.com/?p=3888#comment-853 Again, I can just reiterate that is the basis for the challenge - that the process by which it was amended was faulty. And, I guess if it was as simple as it sounds to me that minority rights once granted, should not be taken away, we wouldn't be here discussing this. That's why we have courts and why we await the decision. Again, I can just reiterate that is the basis for the challenge – that the process by which it was amended was faulty. And, I guess if it was as simple as it sounds to me that minority rights once granted, should not be taken away, we wouldn’t be here discussing this. That’s why we have courts and why we await the decision.

]]> By: Michael Ejercito http://aworldofprogress.com/ca-supreme-court-rumored-to-be-announcing-decision-on-prop-8-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-852 Michael Ejercito Wed, 20 May 2009 21:36:43 +0000 http://awop.nfshost.com/?p=3888#comment-852 I have read about court decisions where amendments to the California constitution that reduced the scope of a legal protection of a minority right were upheld as legitimate amendments.<br /><br />By contrast, I have not even heard of a decision that establishes that an amendment is insufficient to reduce the scope of legal protections of minority rights, nor that the constitution's Declaration of Rights (Article 1) have such a special place in the state constitution that it is beyond the reach of the amendment process. I have read about court decisions where amendments to the California constitution that reduced the scope of a legal protection of a minority right were upheld as legitimate amendments.

By contrast, I have not even heard of a decision that establishes that an amendment is insufficient to reduce the scope of legal protections of minority rights, nor that the constitution’s Declaration of Rights (Article 1) have such a special place in the state constitution that it is beyond the reach of the amendment process.

]]> By: Hahn at Home http://aworldofprogress.com/ca-supreme-court-rumored-to-be-announcing-decision-on-prop-8-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-851 Hahn at Home Wed, 20 May 2009 20:15:32 +0000 http://awop.nfshost.com/?p=3888#comment-851 Michael, you seem to have a solid understanding of the law. But, as you probably know, the basis by which this was brought before the Supremes was because "our side" believes it was added to the ballot illegally. That, in fact, this was a revision to the Constitution and should have been handled in another way. If the justices agree, then gay marriage will be legal once more. And, will remain so until asshat Yes on 8ers find a way to get it on the ballot again, only this time legally. <br /><br />Removing rights already granted is unprecedented in the course of California law as far as I know. That ought to say something pretty significant about that 52% of voters who thought that was a good thing to do. Michael, you seem to have a solid understanding of the law. But, as you probably know, the basis by which this was brought before the Supremes was because “our side” believes it was added to the ballot illegally. That, in fact, this was a revision to the Constitution and should have been handled in another way. If the justices agree, then gay marriage will be legal once more. And, will remain so until asshat Yes on 8ers find a way to get it on the ballot again, only this time legally.

Removing rights already granted is unprecedented in the course of California law as far as I know. That ought to say something pretty significant about that 52% of voters who thought that was a good thing to do.

]]> By: Michael Ejercito http://aworldofprogress.com/ca-supreme-court-rumored-to-be-announcing-decision-on-prop-8-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-850 Michael Ejercito Wed, 20 May 2009 18:38:30 +0000 http://awop.nfshost.com/?p=3888#comment-850 You seem to be forgetting the distinction between a constitutional amendment and a statute. <br /><br />The Supreme Court's role is to interpreting the state constitution. It <i> only </i> protects the rights of the minority from encroachment by the majority as a result of its duty to uphold the state constitution. Protection of minority rights is not a goal of the court apart from its interpretive power over the constitution.<br /><br />Thus, while statutes can not abrogate minority rights, constitutional amendments <i> can </i>. You seem to be forgetting the distinction between a constitutional amendment and a statute.

The Supreme Court’s role is to interpreting the state constitution. It only protects the rights of the minority from encroachment by the majority as a result of its duty to uphold the state constitution. Protection of minority rights is not a goal of the court apart from its interpretive power over the constitution.

Thus, while statutes can not abrogate minority rights, constitutional amendments can .

]]> By: Anna http://aworldofprogress.com/ca-supreme-court-rumored-to-be-announcing-decision-on-prop-8-tomorrow/comment-page-1/#comment-849 Anna Wed, 20 May 2009 17:08:06 +0000 http://awop.nfshost.com/?p=3888#comment-849 Keeping my fingers crossed for all my US friends! Keeping my fingers crossed for all my US friends!

]]>