In a move that shocked two or maybe three people, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that California’s Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage, violates the 14th Amendment and is thus unconstitutional.
I eagerly await the explaination of what 'substantial federal question' has been raised since Baker v Nelson was decided by the homophobe, Thurgoode Marshal.
Yet another good reason to get rid of the Constitution. It serves absolutely no useful purpose, but it constantly gives these black-robed Soviets a justification for their mass slaughter of all civilization and culture. They cite a long series of PREVIOUS black-robed Soviets as precedent, and call this string of insanity piled on insanity piled on insanity "The Constitution."
Without the excuse of the document, they would have to say openly and honestly "This is our viewpoint." Well, they wouldn't say it, but nobody would have any basis for treating the black-robed Soviet murderers as a legal authority.
Well, they have a need to maintain their status as the most overturned circuit in the US Federal system. Does that mean they are by default the dumbest and least qualfied? I think so. When you are wrong as they are so often maybe we need the entire group replaced.
I'm curious as to how Prop 8 violates equal protection. Gay people certainly may not want to marry people of the opposite sex, but there is nothing in Prop 8 that prevents them from doing so (and there's ample evidence that they have, for whatever reasons they chose). I'm not a lawyer but I didn't realize that equal protection under the Constitution gave people the right to arbitrarily redefine accessible civil institutions on the basis of their personal wants and needs. I thought that was what the democratic process was for.
Of course this is the 9th circuit, which is the Fantasyland of the judicial circuits. We'll see if the SC opts for Main Street or Frontierland (or Tomorrowland, perhaps?)
"In a related announcement today, Justice Steven Reinhardt declared that all Ninth Circuit justices will be henceforth elevated to the status of 'living gods' and that their horses will receive automatic seats in the California State Senate."
The primary reliance on Romer is clearly an appeal to Justice Kennedy. What the ruling means is that, although California was not required to recognize same-sex marriage, once the state supreme court invented the right, the people of California are barred by the 14th amendment from undoing that decision. It’s the liberal ratchet effect — a decision not to allow same-sex marriage can always be reconsidered, but once it is in place it cannot be undone.
Aaaaiiiiiiiiii!!! It's the end of the world as we know it!!! Surely nothing good can come of some small subset of gays (who comprise about 3% of the population) being permitted to enter into legally recognized relationships. Now my heterosexual marriage will likely collapse. I hope Maggie Gallagher posts something important here and soon!! Remember: G*d made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve.
Hmm, why is it that homosexuals are 10% of the population when supporters are arguing for their rights, but only 3% when supporters are trying to minimize the effect of radical judicial decisions?
The Ninth Circuit seldom sides with the majority of Americans, but its decisions are generally consistent with the preferences of liberal Californians. When I worked for an appellate lawyer some years ago, we would wait for the appellate decisions to be published so we could make fun of the Ninth Circuit's decisions. They were seldom logical, but always entertaining.
This is just Reinhardt making sure he retains his well-earned title as most-reversed judge in the federal judiciary. At this point, I think he issues these ridiculously implausible decisions that he knows stand zero chance of being upheld simply as a means of clogging up the Supreme Court's docket. The man is a disgrace to the bench and needs to be impeached already.
I hope nobody bet any money on this, because the odds in Vegas were approximately 1:1 that Reinhardt & co. would do this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhich constitution did they use? Is it one Ginsburg would recommend?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet the right-wing freakout begin.
Now the proponents of a permanent legal ghetto for some Americans can froth at the mouth for another year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBwaa-ha-ha. "permanent legal ghetto?" Look who's frothing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI eagerly await the explaination of what 'substantial federal question' has been raised since Baker v Nelson was decided by the homophobe, Thurgoode Marshal.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne step closer to removing government intrusion into the private sphere. Good news!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYet another good reason to get rid of the Constitution. It serves absolutely no useful purpose, but it constantly gives these black-robed Soviets a justification for their mass slaughter of all civilization and culture. They cite a long series of PREVIOUS black-robed Soviets as precedent, and call this string of insanity piled on insanity piled on insanity "The Constitution."
Without the excuse of the document, they would have to say openly and honestly "This is our viewpoint." Well, they wouldn't say it, but nobody would have any basis for treating the black-robed Soviet murderers as a legal authority.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, they have a need to maintain their status as the most overturned circuit in the US Federal system. Does that mean they are by default the dumbest and least qualfied? I think so. When you are wrong as they are so often maybe we need the entire group replaced.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm curious as to how Prop 8 violates equal protection. Gay people certainly may not want to marry people of the opposite sex, but there is nothing in Prop 8 that prevents them from doing so (and there's ample evidence that they have, for whatever reasons they chose). I'm not a lawyer but I didn't realize that equal protection under the Constitution gave people the right to arbitrarily redefine accessible civil institutions on the basis of their personal wants and needs. I thought that was what the democratic process was for.
Of course this is the 9th circuit, which is the Fantasyland of the judicial circuits. We'll see if the SC opts for Main Street or Frontierland (or Tomorrowland, perhaps?)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In a related announcement today, Justice Steven Reinhardt declared that all Ninth Circuit justices will be henceforth elevated to the status of 'living gods' and that their horses will receive automatic seats in the California State Senate."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe primary reliance on Romer is clearly an appeal to Justice Kennedy. What the ruling means is that, although California was not required to recognize same-sex marriage, once the state supreme court invented the right, the people of California are barred by the 14th amendment from undoing that decision. It’s the liberal ratchet effect — a decision not to allow same-sex marriage can always be reconsidered, but once it is in place it cannot be undone.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAaaaiiiiiiiiii!!! It's the end of the world as we know it!!! Surely nothing good can come of some small subset of gays (who comprise about 3% of the population) being permitted to enter into legally recognized relationships. Now my heterosexual marriage will likely collapse. I hope Maggie Gallagher posts something important here and soon!! Remember: G*d made Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHmm, why is it that homosexuals are 10% of the population when supporters are arguing for their rights, but only 3% when supporters are trying to minimize the effect of radical judicial decisions?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Ninth Circuit seldom sides with the majority of Americans, but its decisions are generally consistent with the preferences of liberal Californians. When I worked for an appellate lawyer some years ago, we would wait for the appellate decisions to be published so we could make fun of the Ninth Circuit's decisions. They were seldom logical, but always entertaining.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI would expect nothing less from the 9th circuit court of liberals....What a joke not to mention a waste of time. This decision was made on day one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is just Reinhardt making sure he retains his well-earned title as most-reversed judge in the federal judiciary. At this point, I think he issues these ridiculously implausible decisions that he knows stand zero chance of being upheld simply as a means of clogging up the Supreme Court's docket. The man is a disgrace to the bench and needs to be impeached already.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou think it's a foregone conclusion that Kennedy will overturn this decision? I don't.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI do think that Kennedy will vote to overturn. I read his opinion in Lawrence as a pledge that he will not vote for SSM.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBTW, Mr. Moderator, can I have a star, please? Over 100 posts now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse