The
difference between the Supreme Court and the Ku Klux Klan is that the justices
of the Supreme Court dress in black robes and scare white
people.
______________________
______________________________
"In last weeks'ruling, the court did not rule on whether or not banning gay marriage was Constitutional, they simply ruled that the folks defending the law in court did not have standing to do so, and therefore that the appeal should never have been approved... which leaves the original court ruling overturning Prop 8 in effect. In many ways, it was the worst of all possible outcomes." See Politics Alabama below.
______________________________
Approval of Supreme Court falls to all-time low: pollJust 28% of Americans believe the Supreme Court is doing a good or excellent job, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday. Another 30% rated the court’s performance as poor — the largest amount to say so in the nine years that Rasmussen has been asking the question. Read more here: New York Daily News
____________________________
The following from Politics AlabamaMy Problem With The SCOTUS Ruling On Prop 8
Last week the
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a much discussed ruling on
Prop 8, the law in California that was passed by referendum and banned gay
marriage. Some are saying this a victory for gay rights, while others are
claiming that the Court overruled the voting majority that passed the
referendum. In point of fact, the Court did neither... they did something much
worse.
What can people do if they really want a law but the Legislature refuses to pass such a law? In states such as Alabama, all we can do is gripe and try to elect people who agree with us. In states such as Calfornia, however, citizens can sponsor a public vote on a measure by all registered voters and, if it passes, it becomes a law just as if the Legislature had passed it. (Note that this is a simplification... I am well aware that many states have other provisions.) And that's what happened in California with Prop 8.
In 2008, citizens of the State sponsored a measure that would be a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. It got on the ballot, was voted on during a general election, and passed with a majority of votes. It was overturned in every court that heard the case, but here's the rub: The State refused to defend the law during the appeal, so the District court (with approval of the California Supreme Court) allowed the original petitioners who sponsored Prop 8 to defend it in court.
In last weeks'ruling, the court did not rule on whether or not banning gay marriage was Constitutional, they simply ruled that the folks defending the law in court did not have standing to do so, and therefore that the appeal should never have been approved... which leaves the original court ruling overturning Prop 8 in effect. In many ways, it was the worst of all possible outcomes.
You see, they didn't rule on the question of gay marriage, though most people are treating the results of the decision as if they did so rule. No, instead they simply ruled on standing. Now, why do I say this is bad?
Think of what happened... the majority of voters approved a referendum, which state law allowed to pass a law that the Legislature will not pass. In this way, the citizens have a way around a recalcitrant legislature, if they can get the majority of public opinion behind them. Now, under the new SCOTUS ruling, all a state government has to do to get rid of a law (passed by referendum) that they did not and do not want is to refuse to defend it in court. Since they don't defend the law in court and nobody else has standing to do so, then the law goes undefended... thus greatly increasing the chances of the law being overturned in the initial court, as well as eliminating any possible appeals to that original decision.
Thus the Supreme Court weakened the strength of laws passed by the referendum process... creating a kind of second-class law that can be easily gotten rid of. This is not the intention of referendum laws that attempt to give a voice to citizens when they are denied by their Legislature. If a Legislature wants to pass a law, a referendum isn't needed... by definition, a law passed by referendum is essentially passed against the will of the State (or local) government. Under the new SCOTUS decision, laws passed by referendum can now be easily overturned simply by the state government (which didn't want the law in the first place) refusing to defend it in court.
And that's my problem with their ruling on Prop 8... far from being a triumph against discrimination (or an affront to religiously-minded people, depending upon your point of view), it is in reality nothing more or less than a weakening of the referendum process. If the state refuses to defend in court a law that they didn't want, then SOMEBODY should be allowed to do so, for heaven's sake!
But not according to SCOTUS.
What can people do if they really want a law but the Legislature refuses to pass such a law? In states such as Alabama, all we can do is gripe and try to elect people who agree with us. In states such as Calfornia, however, citizens can sponsor a public vote on a measure by all registered voters and, if it passes, it becomes a law just as if the Legislature had passed it. (Note that this is a simplification... I am well aware that many states have other provisions.) And that's what happened in California with Prop 8.
In 2008, citizens of the State sponsored a measure that would be a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. It got on the ballot, was voted on during a general election, and passed with a majority of votes. It was overturned in every court that heard the case, but here's the rub: The State refused to defend the law during the appeal, so the District court (with approval of the California Supreme Court) allowed the original petitioners who sponsored Prop 8 to defend it in court.
In last weeks'ruling, the court did not rule on whether or not banning gay marriage was Constitutional, they simply ruled that the folks defending the law in court did not have standing to do so, and therefore that the appeal should never have been approved... which leaves the original court ruling overturning Prop 8 in effect. In many ways, it was the worst of all possible outcomes.
You see, they didn't rule on the question of gay marriage, though most people are treating the results of the decision as if they did so rule. No, instead they simply ruled on standing. Now, why do I say this is bad?
Think of what happened... the majority of voters approved a referendum, which state law allowed to pass a law that the Legislature will not pass. In this way, the citizens have a way around a recalcitrant legislature, if they can get the majority of public opinion behind them. Now, under the new SCOTUS ruling, all a state government has to do to get rid of a law (passed by referendum) that they did not and do not want is to refuse to defend it in court. Since they don't defend the law in court and nobody else has standing to do so, then the law goes undefended... thus greatly increasing the chances of the law being overturned in the initial court, as well as eliminating any possible appeals to that original decision.
Thus the Supreme Court weakened the strength of laws passed by the referendum process... creating a kind of second-class law that can be easily gotten rid of. This is not the intention of referendum laws that attempt to give a voice to citizens when they are denied by their Legislature. If a Legislature wants to pass a law, a referendum isn't needed... by definition, a law passed by referendum is essentially passed against the will of the State (or local) government. Under the new SCOTUS decision, laws passed by referendum can now be easily overturned simply by the state government (which didn't want the law in the first place) refusing to defend it in court.
And that's my problem with their ruling on Prop 8... far from being a triumph against discrimination (or an affront to religiously-minded people, depending upon your point of view), it is in reality nothing more or less than a weakening of the referendum process. If the state refuses to defend in court a law that they didn't want, then SOMEBODY should be allowed to do so, for heaven's sake!
But not according to SCOTUS.
1 comment:
Why does it feel as if every year we get another Dred Scott decision?
Post a Comment