03-05-2009, 03:44 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,484
|
This is a "heads we win, tails you lose" situation. The anti-Prop 8 folks campaigned as if the proposition was legitimate prior to the election. They lost, and now they say it was an illegitimate revision of the Constitution.
Any legal argument will be used to achieve the desired ends. The lack of consistency shows there's no integrity in their legal reasoning or arguments.
__________________
"Now I say that I know the meaning of my life: 'To live for God, for my soul.' And this meaning, in spite of its clearness, is mysterious and marvelous. Such is the meaning of all existence." Levin, Anna Karenina, Part 8, Chapter 12 |
03-05-2009, 03:45 PM | #22 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
Quote:
1. Bring new laws 2. Bring revolution America is strong, but jurists doing things like this will cause some creaking in the joints. |
|
03-05-2009, 03:45 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Classic Arch-speak. Hyperbole, stacked on hyperbole, stacked on irrationality. If there is no rule of law, the first thing you are going to do is "vote?" Good luck with that system of anarchy. |
|
03-05-2009, 03:47 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
I am not intimately familiar with the legal arguments on either side, having not read their briefs. I would bet any amount of money you are even less familiar. Before you go grabbing your pitchfork and assault rifles, take a breather and read through the briefs first.
|
03-05-2009, 03:47 PM | #25 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
If California doesn't wish for majority modification of its state constitution then it should change the process, not overrule it because it hates the result. Bad facts make bad law. If Opponents had thrown as much energy prior to the election, then they would have won and not have to worry about revealing their true lack of character. It's hard to have sympathy for folks who lack integrity.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
03-05-2009, 03:48 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
03-05-2009, 03:48 PM | #27 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
03-05-2009, 03:55 PM | #28 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
I've been involved in challenges of constitutional amendments in Nevada, and would read the arguments, but the practical review of what is going on is obvious. We lawyers are trained to manufacture bullshit, bad faith arguments when our clients lose something they didn't wisht to lose, and pay you enough money and you would argue in court that the LDS Church is the spawn of Satan.
Typically, you challenge the numbers of signatures to get it on the ballot, and I'm confusing for the moment referendum versus amendment, as I know there are procedural distinctions where one goes in front of the legislature and one does not. After verifying the sufficiency of the signatures, you examine the language and the explanations on the ballot. However, if the process is correct, there really is no historical precedent for distinguishing between "amendment" and "revision." A distinction with no difference except the Courts wish to reject the will of the people. Go ahead show me the actual caselaw, it won't change the practical review. It's bullshit.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
03-05-2009, 04:19 PM | #29 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
|
If I am against gay marriage, I am ROOTING for the CA Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8.
Nothing will be better in mobilizing people against gay marriage as that. "Look what they did in California. We need to make the laws against gay marriage in our states bullet-proof, what we have is not good enough." |
03-05-2009, 04:29 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
We can appropriately dub this minority rule.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|