Prop 8 Has Been Overturned

[SeattleUte]

If this were an appellate court decision I would call it judicial activism. But it's just another trial court judge trying to make new Constitutional law. I won't get exercised until the Ninth buys into Judge Walker's reasoning.

BTW, the same-sex marriage issue is more complex than Roe v. Wade in terms of the impact of court decisions. Abortion, without Roe v. Wade, would be a state-by-state issue. Same-sex marriage, however, implicates the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, which might be interpreted to mean that a marriage recognized in one state may have to be recognized in another state. The Constitution says:



A marriage is a "public act" noted in the records of a state. The role of Congress in this clause is somewhat ambiguous (and I think there are Supreme Court decisions on that role, but I am not a full faith and credit scholar). Right now we have the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996 (I think). DOMA says states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. That could be changed by a simple majority vote in (the now Democratic) Congress, and President Obama says he opposes DOMA, so he'd sign a repeal if Congress had the guts to pass it -- which could happen in a lame-duck session after this November's election. So it's by no means clear that same-sex marriage will be a state-by-state issue.

Now I have to do some real work.

I would never accuse you of not thinking it's judicial activism. But thanks for reminding us you're one of the bad guys.

[SeattleUte]

Olson's law firm, Gibson Dunn, got a $10 million retainer for the case. So did David Boies' firm. A cool $20 million right out the door. It was Hollywood money, I understand.

Oh, so Olson's firm represented the gay marriage side. No one said that. lol.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Oh, so Olson's firm represented the gay marriage side. No one said that. lol.

Yeah, he was a hired gun. You can't do much better than a former solicitor general. I'm still trying to figure out what the hell Fox News was doing interviewing Ted Olson in this case. Don't they have an audience to please?

[LA Ute]

I would never accuse you of not thinking it's judicial activism. But thanks for reminding us you're one of the bad guys.

I keep forgetting that for liberals, there is no such thing as judicial activism, unless one is describing the decisions of a conservative judge.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yeah, he was a hired gun. You can't do much better than a former solicitor general. I'm still trying to figure out what the hell Fox News was doing interviewing Ted Olson in this case. Don't they have an audience to please?

Chris Wallace is one of the good guys on Fox. I can guarantee you that this would be been a much different interview on The O'Reilly Factor. Or on the Glenn Beck program. Either of those would have been great entertainment however.

[SeattleUte]

I keep forgetting that for liberals, there is no such thing as judicial activism, unless one is describing the decisions of a conservative judge.

I would have represented you guys for $20 million. My highest duty is to my clients, warts and all.

[wuapinmon]

The latter is not representative of the claim previously set forth. And if you pressed the former even just a little bit, I bet he'd admit that he doesn't really believe that.
Just ask him if he'd agree that a court couldn't rule a law unconstitutional that banned his religion.

Tim is talking about my adopted brother, and no, he will not change his opinions. He thinks that what the author intended is what the law should be.

[LA Ute]

Chris Wallace is one of the good guys on Fox. I can guarantee you that this would be been a much different interview on The O'Reilly Factor. Or on the Glenn Beck program. Either of those would have been great entertainment however.

Wallace is kind of like Candy Crowley on CNN. But his show and hers are news shows. O'Reilly and Beck are opinion shows. I don't watch them because they are entirely predictable. Do you ever watch Jack Cafferty's rants on CNN? I don't watch him either for the same reason.

[Uncle Ted]

Also unavailable. Dang. Thanks, though!

Try this link:

[YOUTUBE]L128aNex72w[/YOUTUBE]

If that doesn't work PM me.

[LiveCoug]

This poll I posted has restored my faith in most of cougarboard and helped me understand that the crazies are a minority.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=5762738

[SeattleUte]

This poll I posted has restored my faith in most of cougarboard and helped me understand that the crazies are a minority.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=5762738

I voted no and it wouldn't accept my vote. Nice job mod, posting a bogus poll to make us think CB is not a bunch of crazies.

[LiveCoug]

I voted no and it wouldn't accept my vote. Nice job mod, posting a bogus poll to make us think CB is not a bunch of crazies.

That's cause I suspended CatBlue for another century for what you post over here!

[Jacob]

Tim is talking about my adopted brother, and no, he will not change his opinions. He thinks that what the author intended is what the law should be.

Well of course he is correct. But that's not what we are arguing about.

[Jacob]

LOL! Done that! He refuses to bend from his belief that there's only one reading of the Constitution that matters, and it's a literal one. He makes no concession for changing times, improved science, etc. If the Constitution says it, it's golden. If it doesn't say it, it's worthless. That's his approach. Of course he would say that a court couldn't rule a law unconstitutional that banned his religion because religion is specifically and literally mentioned in the Constitution.

Wait a minute! What could your position possibly be? That the constitution should be read in some way that is not literal? Figuratively perhaps? Metaphorically? Maybe literal isn't the word you really mean here. Because the constitution should quite obviously be interpreted by taking the words actually used in their literal sense.

But these discussions never seem to stay on topic. All I am saying is that virtually nobody believes, as was claimed by DU Ute, that

the courts ability to overturn the will of the majority in any situation is unconstitutional

(see my example re: religions freedom)

and

the Constitution simply says "we want things to stay the way they are now and future generations should try to do things the way they guess we would do them."

These are straw men, even if you could find a few crazies who you adhere to such beliefs.

[UtahDan]

A marriage is a "public act" noted in the records of a state. The role of Congress in this clause is somewhat ambiguous (and I think there are Supreme Court decisions on that role, but I am not a full faith and credit scholar). Right now we have the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996 (I think). DOMA says states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. That could be changed by a simple majority vote in (the now Democratic) Congress, and President Obama says he opposes DOMA, so he'd sign a repeal if Congress had the guts to pass it -- which could happen in a lame-duck session after this November's election. So it's by no means clear that same-sex marriage will be a state-by-state issue.

The analogy is common law marriage. I think there are only about 10 or so states where a common law marriage can arise, but if it does arise in that state all of the rest have to recognize it as the genuine article.