11-01-2008, 04:42 PM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
Does anyone honestly think that in the unlikely event that Prop 8 actually passes that it will stand up to California court scrutiny?
|
11-01-2008, 04:44 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 1,148
|
|
11-01-2008, 04:45 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: the far corner of my mind
Posts: 8,711
|
Quote:
Of course it will. that is the whole point. It is an amendment to the california constitution. The court has nto choice. The issue willbe the federal consitution.
__________________
Sorry for th e tpyos. |
|
11-01-2008, 04:50 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 9,483
|
Quote:
After this, federal circuit, baby! creekster's point is a fair one....most state constitutions have already settled the issue. However, that doesn't mean that the SC cannot say, "too bad. change your constitutions." It is inevitable. This issue will go up to the SC. I am not sure how it stands up to scrutiny, since on its face, it appears to be a basic denial of equal treatment. Also, is there enough data to demonstrate a compelling public interest to prevent gays from marriage? There may be, but I'd like to see it.
__________________
Fitter. Happier. More Productive. "Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte |
|
11-01-2008, 04:52 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
OK, so I'm admittedly ignorant of California law, but what you're saying is that if you can get more than 50% support on any law, no matter how unconstitutional it is, it is immune from judicial review and not subject to being overturned?
|
11-01-2008, 04:55 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 9,483
|
Quote:
That is where the SC comes in. And that is why the SC is constantly pushing stuff back down to the state. If an issue comes before the SC prematurely (meaning it has not yet exhausted all possible state and circuit level avenues), then usually the SC will simply say, "daddy's home boys....and I will serve no fries before their time...."
__________________
Fitter. Happier. More Productive. "Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte |
|
11-01-2008, 05:09 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 580
|
Quote:
http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=4180721 Judges have made countless bad decisions, some of which went against the will of the people. I regard such judges as stupid, not wicked. But other judges, going against the will of the people, have rendered brave and excellent decisions. Were it not for such judges, we would have had segregated schools for much longer, and interracial couples would be serving time. |
|
11-01-2008, 05:17 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
Rational basis is a low bar and the Court would have to find that there is none, that it is totally arbitrary. Whether you think on a moral level whether there are rational reasons to make the classification will answer the question. I bet this has come up before now but I'm too lazy to do a Lexis search.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
11-01-2008, 05:28 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
The further issue is whether under the federal constitution you have created a "classification" that runs a foul of the fourteenth amendment (equal protection clause) which has several layers for deciding whether a classification is permissible depending on what it is. The SCOTUS has never found that sexual orientation is a "suspect class" (that is, in laymans terms, you have to have a really good reason for making that classification) like race or religion or even a quasi-suspect class like gender. For any of those a state must show a really, really good reason for having a law that treats people differently based on one of those. Everything else, all other classifications, just meet a rational basis test. That is, if there is any rational reason at all the law treats people differently then the law is okay. So far, sexual orientation is in this latter class. So any articulable reason for a law (or a state constitution) that treats them differently will suffice. The SCOTUS, however, could decide to expand its definition of "suspect class" to include sexual orientation and no doubt it is going to get asked to do exactly that at some point. Hope that is helpful.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo Last edited by UtahDan; 11-01-2008 at 05:30 PM. |
|
11-01-2008, 05:29 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 9,483
|
Quote:
rational basis sounds correct. I need to bust out my Con Law notes.
__________________
Fitter. Happier. More Productive. "Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|