• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court won't force state to defend Prop. 8

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The outlook for the legal defense of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage, grew cloudier Thursday as a state appellate court refused to order Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal a federal judge's ruling overturning the measure.
Case dismissed.

This is big. Governor Schwarzeneggar does not have to appeal the overturning of Proposition 8, and he won't. This means that, pretty soon, gay marriage in California is going to be pretty much a done deal.

I remember a few years ago, when Republicans pushed other candidates aside to make Arnold the candidate, and eventually the Governor. Screw the issues, the "R" after the name was everything. To those Republicans, I say "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it". As for Arnold? In some ways, he turned out to be a decent Republican, after all. He definitely turned out to be one that ended up upholding Constitutional principles for ALL people in his state, not just some.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:

Councilman

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
4,454
Reaction score
1,654
Location
Riverside, County, CA.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is no surprise Jerry Brown won't take any action because after all, well you know. Enough said know what L mean nudge nudge. say no more, say no more. :rofl

The article didn't say but was that the 9th Circus Court of Shlameels? What do you expect?

On a serious note if the people don't like the way the Radical Liberals who make up less than 25% of the population get away with all the nonsense they need to understand that backing down when confronted by their name calling, lying. smear tactics, and all sorts of threats and intimidation, mixed with ample amounts threats of violence we only have to stand together and never never back down.

It's the only way to put an end to the Godlessness and lack of morals and integrity we face almost every day.

We can start by voting the Bums on both sides of the isle out in Nov.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything!
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is no surprise Jerry Brown won't take any action because after all, well you know. Enough said know what L mean nudge nudge. say no more, say no more. :rofl

The article didn't say but was that the 9th Circus Court of Shlameels? What do you expect?

On a serious note if the people don't like the way the Radical Liberals who make up less than 25% of the population get away with all the nonsense they need to understand that backing down when confronted by their name calling, lying. smear tactics, and all sorts of threats and intimidation, mixed with ample amounts threats of violence we only have to stand together and never never back down.

It's the only way to put an end to the Godlessness and lack of morals and integrity we face almost every day.

We can start by voting the Bums on both sides of the isle out in Nov.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything!
I completely disagree with you on just about everything you said, except for that last sentence. We can drink a beer to that. :)
 

hazlnut

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
If Prop. 8's supporters are barred from defending it, the appeals court could uphold Walker's ruling on procedural grounds without deciding whether the initiative was constitutional. Same-sex couples would then regain the right to marry, which they won in a May 2008 state Supreme Court ruling that the voters repealed less than six months later.
I hope that gays are able to get married ASAP -- but I would've like to have seen this one go all the way. A ruling from SCOTUS could shut down all anti-gay marriage and adoption laws.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,128
Reaction score
32,334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is no surprise Jerry Brown won't take any action because after all, well you know. Enough said know what L mean nudge nudge. say no more, say no more. :rofl

The article didn't say but was that the 9th Circus Court of Shlameels? What do you expect?

On a serious note if the people don't like the way the Radical Liberals who make up less than 25% of the population get away with all the nonsense they need to understand that backing down when confronted by their name calling, lying. smear tactics, and all sorts of threats and intimidation, mixed with ample amounts threats of violence we only have to stand together and never never back down.

It's the only way to put an end to the Godlessness and lack of morals and integrity we face almost every day.

We can start by voting the Bums on both sides of the isle out in Nov.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything!
So am I to translate this rant as "God said no homos so we have to fight this?"
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fact of the matter is that Proposition 8 violated the Fourteenth Amendment, it wasn't going to pass the Supreme Court, and the state of California can't afford the luxury of wasting time on such petty issues right now.

The state is facing bankruptcy thanks to the goonions that have controlled the state for decades, and the vultures are coming home to roost.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I hope that gays are able to get married ASAP -- but I would've like to have seen this one go all the way. A ruling from SCOTUS could shut down all anti-gay marriage and adoption laws.
Ya same here. While I'm happy for California, I'm a bit disappointed that we didn't get to see the Supreme Court strike down gay marriage bans nationwide, which they almost certainly would have (with a couple conservatives joining the liberals). I guess we'll have to wait a few more years for that to happen.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,128
Reaction score
32,334
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ya same here. While I'm happy for California, I'm a bit disappointed that we didn't get to see the Supreme Court strike down gay marriage bans nationwide, which they almost certainly would have (with a couple conservatives joining the liberals). I guess we'll have to wait a few more years for that to happen.
The article says the federal appeals court will hear the case in December.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Considering the measure is a duly-adopted provision of the California constitution, I'd say it's not an unreasonable argument that they're required to defend it by their oaths of office:

"I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. "
 

hazlnut

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Considering the measure is a duly-adopted provision of the California constitution, I'd say it's not an unreasonable argument that they're required to defend it by their oaths of office:

"I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. "
The California Constitution hadn't been amended when they swore to defend it.

They could say - "I didn't swear to defend that homophobic, misguided thing..."

Can you say Loophole?
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The California Constitution hadn't been amended when they swore to defend it.

They could say - "I didn't swear to defend that homophobic, misguided thing..."

Can you say Loophole?
Doesn't matter.

The amendment was duly adopted according to the terms of the constitution, and thus is now duly a part of the constitution.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The California Constitution hadn't been amended when they swore to defend it.

They could say - "I didn't swear to defend that homophobic, misguided thing..."

Can you say Loophole?
You could also say "porkchop sandwiches." Both would have the same legal significance.
 

FilmFestGuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It is no surprise Jerry Brown won't take any action because after all, well you know. Enough said know what L mean nudge nudge. say no more, say no more. :rofl

The article didn't say but was that the 9th Circus Court of Shlameels? What do you expect?

On a serious note if the people don't like the way the Radical Liberals who make up less than 25% of the population get away with all the nonsense they need to understand that backing down when confronted by their name calling, lying. smear tactics, and all sorts of threats and intimidation, mixed with ample amounts threats of violence we only have to stand together and never never back down.

It's the only way to put an end to the Godlessness and lack of morals and integrity we face almost every day.

We can start by voting the Bums on both sides of the isle out in Nov.

Those who stand for nothing fall for anything!
What morals. The morals that say Newt Gingrich can walk out on his cancer-ridden wife? The morals that say that John McCain can leave the wife who supported him through his long recovery process from his experiences in Vietnam for a hot new piece? The morals that say that Dan Burton can father a child outside his marriage?

You mean those good Republican morals?

How is denying marriage to a couple of the same sex who's been together for a dozen defending marriage when it's given freely to people who will throw it away? How is that remotely moral?
 

FilmFestGuy

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2009
Messages
2,120
Reaction score
1,244
Location
Nashville, TN
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Doesn't matter.

The amendment was duly adopted according to the terms of the constitution, and thus is now duly a part of the constitution.
To be honest, while I'm against Prop. 8 and I think it's a violation of the 14th Amendement of the US Constitution, I do think the state should at least pretend to defend it even if their heart's not in it.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
To be honest, while I'm against Prop. 8 and I think it's a violation of the 14th Amendement of the US Constitution, I do think the state should at least pretend to defend it even if their heart's not in it.
Legtimate legal process, and the maintenance of same, matters more than the outcome.
 

hazlnut

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Doesn't matter.

The amendment was duly adopted according to the terms of the constitution, and thus is now duly a part of the constitution.
When you sign a contract, if someone amends that contract... it's void.

And the Current CA Constitution has been ruled unconstitutional -- They're American's first.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,261
Reaction score
50,276
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Here is my honest question for our legal people: If Arnold and the DA think that the Amendment is counter to the US constitution, would they still be expected to defend it legally? I mean, I can see both sides here. Yes, public officials should protect the law, but if they believe, with some potential legal justification, that the law is, well, illegal, would they then be justified in not defending it?
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
When you sign a contract, if someone amends that contract... it's void.
Not if that contract specifically permits unilateral alteration. :shrug:

And the Current CA Constitution has been ruled unconstitutional -- They're American's first.
By a single court whose jurisdiction doesn't even cover the entire state, and there are further avenues to pursue.

Look, there's no other way to put this: you're wrong, and this line of argument is laugh-out-loud stupid.
 

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,831
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Here is my honest question for our legal people: If Arnold and the DA think that the Amendment is counter to the US constitution, would they still be expected to defend it legally? I mean, I can see both sides here. Yes, public officials should protect the law, but if they believe, with some potential legal justification, that the law is, well, illegal, would they then be justified in not defending it?
You could make the argument, but the counter-argument is that until the legal avenues have been exhausted, the (federal) constitutionality is still very much an open question. One district court isn't enough.

But it's certainly a stronger argument than "they don't have to defend it because it wasn't in the constitution when they took their oaths."
 
Last edited:

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I do not think they actually believe prop 8 would be overturned if it went all the way to supreme court, which is why they have the lets not defend it attitude .B ecause it would blow up in their faces taking it all the way to the S.C. and prop 8 is upheld. Sure the left circuit court would strike it down in a heart beat. However I dot think the S.C. would buy the it violates the 14th amendment. Mostly for the simple fact sexual preference is not the same as race nor is it even comparable, so the one male and one female requirement for marriage applies to everyone.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
When you sign a contract, if someone amends that contract... it's void.

And the Current CA Constitution has been ruled unconstitutional -- They're American's first.
"When I joined the military and swore to defend the country as directed, we were at peace. Now the Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbor and they're telling me I have to go fight at war. We weren't at war when I signed my contract, so that means I get to go home, right?"
 

winston53660

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
29,265
Reaction score
10,128
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"When I joined the military and swore to defend the country as directed, we were at peace. Now the Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbor and they're telling me I have to go fight at war. We weren't at war when I signed my contract, so that means I get to go home, right?"
I think that part about going to war is already in the contract even during peace time.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
106,261
Reaction score
50,276
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
You could make the argument, but the counter-argument is that until the legal avenues have been exhausted, the (federal) constitutionality is still very much an open question. One district court isn't enough.

But it's certainly a stronger argument than "they don't have to defend it because it wasn't in the constitution when they took their oaths."
Let me ask another, and the part that really makes no sense to me out of this:

What is the advantage to the prop 8 backers to have some one who disagrees with them on their team so to speak for the trial? It seems to my point of view as a legal outsider, that it would not be in their interest to force help from people who don't want to help if you follow what I am saying. Since it makes no sense from that standpoint, I would assume that there has to be some benefit from a legal standpoint to force them to defend it?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I think that part about going to war is already in the contract even during peace time.
The part about upholding the CA constitution was already in the oath. Hazlnut is trying to argue that because these people don't like this particular implementation of the constitution, they don't have to defend it. That's like saying that because you don't like a particular implementation of military force, you don't have to follow orders.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Let me ask another, and the part that really makes no sense to me out of this:

What is the advantage to the prop 8 backers to have some one who disagrees with them on their team so to speak for the trial? It seems to my point of view as a legal outsider, that it would not be in their interest to force help from people who don't want to help if you follow what I am saying. Since it makes no sense from that standpoint, I would assume that there has to be some benefit from a legal standpoint to force them to defend it?
There's some uncertainty about whether the prop 8 backers would have standing to appeal the suit. If the state were forced to bring the appeal, it would ensure that the case moved on.
 
Top Bottom