Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Prop 8 overturned, off to circuit court

[The Mikado]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence
that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection
rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional
violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition
8.California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-
sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,
see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to
defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the
Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of
judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the
official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and
directing the official defendants that all persons under their
control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8.
The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of
plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and
defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

That's the last two paragraphs of the 138 page ruling.

[cinyc]

Hooray for judicial activism creating "rights" that didn't exist for 200+ years!  This will go to SCOTUS.  Hopefully, they will reverse.

[CubOB]

Fantastic news! I really enjoyed following the Prop 8 Trial Tracker during the case - the defendants literally had nothing. Fingers crossed for when the case hits the Supreme Court though, of course.

[Free Palestine]

Hooray for judicial activism creating "rights" that didn't exist for 200+ years!  This will go to SCOTUS.  Hopefully, they will reverse.

[The Mikado]

Hooray for judicial activism

Hooray indeed.

[Free Palestine]

As much as I hate Proposition 8, this should be handled at the state level.

[CubOB]

Remember everyone, they're only activist judges when they do stuff you don't like

[Free Palestine]

Remember everyone, they're only activist judges when they do stuff you don't like

That's a really silly thing to say.

[Lunar]

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[Gravis Marketing]

Remember everyone, they're only activist judges when they do stuff you don't like

That's a really silly thing to say.

Citizens United, anyone?

[Free Palestine]

Remember everyone, they're only not activist judges when they do something you agree with. 

[CubOB]

Remember everyone, they're only activist judges when they do stuff you don't like

That's a really silly thing to say.

Is it? "Activist judges" has become one of the biggest right-wing memes, and it's never aimed at judges who make decisions the right-wing talking heads agree with. Either way I was just making a light-hearted comment, and I'm far from the first person to have made the observation (I was actually under the impression it was a well-known joke/reference in US political discussion. Perhaps I'm wrong!)

[Marokai]

Hooray for judicial activism creating "rights" that didn't exist for 200+ years!  This will go to SCOTUS.  Hopefully, they will reverse.

I'm curious on your thoughts of those disgusting Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia rulings.

[Free Palestine]

Remember everyone, they're only activist judges when they do stuff you don't like

That's a really silly thing to say.

Is it? "Activist judges" has become one of the biggest right-wing memes, and it's never aimed at judges who make decisions the right-wing talking heads agree with. Either way I was just making a light-hearted comment, and I'm far from the first person to have made the observation (I was actually under the impression it was a well-known joke/reference in US political discussion. Perhaps I'm wrong!)

It just so happens that the judges who make decisions I agree with aren't activist judges, i.e. they don't pull Constitutional law out of their asses.

[Tender Branson]

A gay judge ruling on behalf of gay people?  I'm shocked.

[Marokai]

A gay judge ruling on behalf of gay people?  I'm shocked.

Should gay people be allowed to be judges?

[Torie]

This is shocking, not!  I mean, why would a left wing gay judge do this?  Anyway, I know he really, really enjoyed the trial. Heck, if he had been able to have it all televised (until SCOTUS b slapped him), it probably would have been the peak experience of his life, and one that didn't even require testosterone shots to get there. Who could ask for anything more?  

[Tender Branson]

A gay judge ruling on behalf of gay people?  I'm shocked.

Should gay people be allowed to be judges?

No, the morality of judges should be above reproach.  Any judge found to have engaged in homosexual conduct ought to be disbarred.

[Senator Sbane]

Hooray for judicial activism creating "rights" that didn't exist for 200+ years!  This will go to SCOTUS.  Hopefully, they will reverse.

Yeah judicial activism sucks, like saying Corporations are individuals with all the rights and none of the responsibilities, or that free speech means being able to funnel as much money as you want to politicians for personal gain later. Yeah, judicial activism really sucks, Cinyc.

[CubOB]

A gay judge ruling on behalf of gay people?  I'm shocked.

It's more like "A judge ruling in favour of gay people when the other side were so inept one of their witnesses actually ended up arguing against his own side? I'm shocked!"

Judge: “I’m asking you to tell me how [marriage equality] would harm opposite-sex marriages….”

Pro-Proposition 8 Attorney Cooper: “Your Honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”

[The Mikado]

From page 122:

The trial record shows that strict scrutiny is the
appropriate standard of review to apply to legislative
classifications based on sexual orientation. All classifications
based on sexual orientation appear suspect, as the evidence shows
that California would rarely, if ever, have a reason to categorize
individuals based on their sexual orientation. FF 47. Here,
however, strict scrutiny is unnecessary. Proposition 8 fails to
survive even rational basis review.

[Senator Sbane]

Remember everyone, they're only activist judges when they do stuff you don't like

That's a really silly thing to say.

lol no

[Marokai]

Remember everyone, they're only activist judges when they do stuff you don't like

That's a really silly thing to say.

Is it? "Activist judges" has become one of the biggest right-wing memes, and it's never aimed at judges who make decisions the right-wing talking heads agree with. Either way I was just making a light-hearted comment, and I'm far from the first person to have made the observation (I was actually under the impression it was a well-known joke/reference in US political discussion. Perhaps I'm wrong!)

It just so happens that the judges who make decisions I agree with aren't activist judges, i.e. they don't pull Constitutional law out of their asses.

The term 'activist judge' is a nonsense term and always has been. Turning a century of election law on it's head in Citizens United would be, to any objective and sane individual with half a mind, the dictionary definition of 'activist judge.'

The term is only used to go after judges that make rulings individuals don't like. The only difference between the sides is that one side, the left, supports the very notion of the courts being able to do anything at all, and another side, only likes court rulings when they go their way, and when they don't, they clamor for what is essentially a powerless judiciary. The term is a pretty dastardly one in itself when you consider the motive, which is basically to castrate the judicial branch. It's also downright pathetic and evil, when you think back to things previously passed that would be considered 'activist judging.' Desegregation? Striking down all interracial marriage bans? Invalidating sodomy laws? No matter what wordy legalese you may want to 'pull out of your ass' to justify opposition to those rulings, you're a Horrible Person.

Court rulings in favor of marriage equality is another (right) step forward in the long history of civil rights expansion and protection. Whether it happens tomorrow or in ten years, it will, and it will be in line with our past, and though it may be justifiable somehow now to oppose it on BS grounds, in a generation, you'll all look like bigoted bastards the way most of us look back on the opposition to women's rights, and black rights. As it should be.

[CubOB]

Does that mean I haven't made some sort of weird US law-based faux pas? I'll trust your judgement on this matter Marokai.

[Senator Sbane]

Remember everyone, they're only activist judges when they do stuff you don't like

That's a really silly thing to say.

Is it? "Activist judges" has become one of the biggest right-wing memes, and it's never aimed at judges who make decisions the right-wing talking heads agree with. Either way I was just making a light-hearted comment, and I'm far from the first person to have made the observation (I was actually under the impression it was a well-known joke/reference in US political discussion. Perhaps I'm wrong!)

It just so happens that the judges who make decisions I agree with aren't activist judges, i.e. they don't pull Constitutional law out of their asses.

The term 'activist judge' is a nonsense term and always has been. Turning a century of election law on it's head in Citizens United would be, to any objective and sane individual with half a mind, the dictionary definition of 'activist judge.'

The term is only used to go after judges that make rulings individuals don't like. The only difference between the sides is that one side, the left, supports the very notion of the courts being able to do anything at all, and another side, only likes court rulings when they go their way, and when they don't, they clamor for what is essentially a powerless judiciary. The term is a pretty dastardly one in itself when you consider the motive, which is basically to castrate the judicial branch. It's also downright pathetic and evil, when you think back to things previously passed that would be considered 'activist judging.' Desegregation? Striking down all interracial marriage bans? Invalidating sodomy laws? No matter what wordy legalese you may want to 'pull out of your ass' to justify opposition to those rulings, you're a Horrible Person.

Court rulings in favor of marriage equality is another (right) step forward in the long history of civil rights expansion and protection. Whether it happens tomorrow or in ten years, it will, and it will be in line with our past, and though it may be justifiable somehow now to oppose it on BS grounds, in a generation, you'll all look like bigoted bastards the way most of us look back on the opposition to women's rights, and black rights. As it should be.

Don't you know Marokia? Everything the rightwingers like is magically in the constitution. If you look really hard under UV light and the temperature is exactly 87.5 degrees fahrenheit with a full moon, you can see all the copious amounts the founders wrote about how corporations are individuals and their free speech rights are infringed if they can't give millions of dollars to politicians.