CA AG (former and prospective gov) Jerry Brown Asks Supreme Court to Overturn 8

[Lunar]

His odds of becoming the next governor just shot up exponentially - if Newsom doesn't run as well.



(CBS/AP) The California attorney general has changed his position on the state's new same-sex marriage ban and is now urging the state Supreme Court to void Proposition 8.

Jerry Brown filed a brief Friday saying the measure that amended the California Constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman is unconstitutional. He says it deprives gay couples of a fundamental right.

After California voters passed Proposition 8 on Nov. 4, Brown said he would fight to uphold the initiative in his role as attorney general, even though he personally voted against it.

He submitted his brief in one of the three legal challenges to Proposition 8 brought by same-sex marriage supporters.

The sponsors of Proposition 8 are asking the state Supreme Court to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Kenneth Starr, dean of Pepperdine University's law school and the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.

The campaign submitted the document in response to three lawsuits seeking to invalidate Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment adopted last month that overruled the court's decision in May that had legalized gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.

Both Brown and gay rights groups maintain that the gay marriage ban may not be applied retroactively.

The Supreme Court could hear arguments in the litigation as soon as March.

The measure's backers announced Friday that Starr, a former federal judge and U.S. solicitor general, had signed on as their lead counsel and would argue the cases.

Proposition 8's supporters assert that the Supreme Court lacks the authority or historical precedent to throw out the amendment.

"For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges - as servants of the people - to bow to the will of those whom they serve - even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened."

The cases are Strauss v. Horton, S168047; City and County of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078; and Tyler v. State of California, S168066.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/19/national/main4679176.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4679176

[Flying Dog]

Jerry Brown is a major FF.

[Keystone Phil]

Jerry Brown doing something I disagree with. Shocking.

[Bacon King]

Kind of cool even if it is just a futile publicity stunt.

[Meeker]

Epic FF

[Lunar]

Kind of cool even if it is just a futile publicity stunt.

Lunar thinks it's a campaign stunt more than a generic publicity stunt

[Bacon King]

Kind of cool even if it is just a futile publicity stunt.

Lunar thinks it's a campaign stunt more than a generic publicity stunt

Well, a campaign stunt is a kind of publicity stunt, so yeah.

[Lunar]

Kind of cool even if it is just a futile publicity stunt.

Lunar thinks it's a campaign stunt more than a generic publicity stunt

Well, a campaign stunt is a kind of publicity stunt, so yeah.

Well, I suppose I differentiate a politically calculated move compared to something the makers of Jackass might do, even if they are intimately connected....

[Хahar 🤔]

Epic FF

[Lief 🗽]

Damn. I wish we had nominated this guy in 1992 instead of that Republican.

[Lunar]

I don't know how I feel about this.

I worked on the No On 8 campaign but I sort of feel that this gay marriage battle is premature and run by people who don't have a clue how non-believers think, but I, like a fair number of leaders in the gay movement, don't know if this is the right way to go about it, through the courts and all.

Like, I think the No On 8 folks would rather spend fifty hours blanketing the halls on the Berkeley campus with fliers rather than, like, talking to the black people two miles away who might actually vote yes.

If this is the leadership of the gay marriage movement in CA, it might be best to let this leadership pass and let someone who is capable of expanding outreach take over.  You can see that liberals in CA are completely aghast that people are so "ignorant," "religious" or "uneducated" that they would vote yes on Prop 8.  It's even worse when a civil rights movement attacks African-Americans and Mormons as a form of self-identification!  When I saw the anti-Mormon commercials on TV I wanted to vomit.  When I heard that gay-rights rallies were yelling out the N-word I was similarly upset.  While these adjectives (the "ignorant" ones) might or might not be true, it speaks wonders about the disconnect between California liberals and people uncomfortable with homosexuality.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Dude, Interracial marriage was once far more unpopular than gay marriage was today. When the California Supreme Court and then later the US Supreme Court ruled on it, the majority who opposed it didn't pass some proposition undoing it.

As for Brown's argument, if Prop. 8 counts as a Constitutional revision, it's invalid.

In any case, why is it easier to pass a Constitutional amendment than a budget in our state?

True, some people on the No side made political dumb choices, but that isn't a reason for not having gay marriage. Oh, and Oakland blacks voted against Prop. 8.

[Lunar]

Dude, Interracial marriage was once far more unpopular than gay marriage was today. When the California Supreme Court and then later the US Supreme Court ruled on it, the majority who opposed it didn't pass some proposition undoing it.

As for Brown's argument, if Prop. 8 counts as a Constitutional revision, it's invalid.

Valid points all.

Like I say, I am a vocal supporter of gay marriage and devoted maybe ten hours to helping out the No folks.  But sometimes the right time for things is when the movement peaks and sometimes the leaders of a movement absolutely suck at outreach.  My friends know me to rant about this unnecessarily long but the No On 8 campaign was the worst campaign I've ever seen in my life and symbolic of a lot of liberal disconnect with reality -- the misunderstanding of why people would not agree with you.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Dude, Interracial marriage was once far more unpopular than gay marriage was today. When the California Supreme Court and then later the US Supreme Court ruled on it, the majority who opposed it didn't pass some proposition undoing it.

As for Brown's argument, if Prop. 8 counts as a Constitutional revision, it's invalid.

Valid points all.

Like I say, I am a vocal supporter of gay marriage and devoted maybe ten hours to helping out the No folks.  But sometimes the right time for things is when the movement peaks and sometimes the leaders of a movement absolutely suck at outreach.  My friends know me to rant about this unnecessarily long but the No On 8 campaign was the worst campaign I've ever seen in my life and symbolic of a lot of liberal disconnect with reality -- the misunderstanding of why people would not agree with you.

The Lovings just had to reach out to 9 people. Luckily for them, the court wasn't filled with hardcore right-wingers like it is today. For an example of a recent hackish ruling that almost everyone on this forum can agree sucks, see this one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/business/28cnd-bizcourt.html?_r=1

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Looking at this purely from a legal standpoint, I don't see how he can win.  I think the only chance they had was a arguing that it was placed on the ballot illegally.  I just don't see how they'll get an Amendment to the Constitution overturned.

[Brittain33]

Looking at this purely from a legal standpoint, I don't see how he can win.  I think the only chance they had was a arguing that it was placed on the ballot illegally.  I just don't see how they'll get an Amendment to the Constitution overturned.

It's happened before.

Naturally I'm biased, but I've always felt this argument was strong. If the court found an inherent right in the constitution, it's should to take a revision and not a 50%+1 amendment to undo it. Otherwise the constitution would be littered with contradictory amendments and the majority could vote away anything. It also must stick in the craw of people concerned about minority rights to think that a simple majority, most of whom aren't directly affected, can contradict what the court found to be an essential right in the constitution.

[Lunar]

Looking at this purely from a legal standpoint, I don't see how he can win.  I think the only chance they had was a arguing that it was placed on the ballot illegally.  I just don't see how they'll get an Amendment to the Constitution overturned.

The legal argument is pretty easy to make: propositions are not allowed to make fundamental/substantial/whatever changes to the Constitution.  Like a proposition isn't allowed to bring back slavery or whatever.  The legislature has to do that.

Aaaaand the court that will be hearing this is the same one that decided California's constitution guaranteed the rights of gays to marry in the first place!

I mean, strictly legally, Roe v. Wade is on a lot of shaky ground, but in reality it's going to last another few decades if not forever.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Looking at this purely from a legal standpoint, I don't see how he can win.  I think the only chance they had was a arguing that it was placed on the ballot illegally.  I just don't see how they'll get an Amendment to the Constitution overturned.

It's happened before.

Naturally I'm biased, but I've always felt this argument was strong. If the court found an inherent right in the constitution, it's should to take a revision and not a 50%+1 amendment to undo it. Otherwise the constitution would be littered with contradictory amendments and the majority could vote away anything. It also must stick in the craw of people concerned about minority rights to think that a simple majority, most of whom aren't directly affected, can contradict what the court found to be an essential right in the constitution.

But an amendment is part of the Constitution.  It's no different than the rest of the Constitution other than its date.

[Lunar]

Amendments are Unconstitutional if they change the character of the Constitution though.  The big changes have to occur through the legislature.

For example, as I said, you can't pass an amendment that brings back slavery.

[Хahar 🤔]

Looking at this purely from a legal standpoint, I don't see how he can win.  I think the only chance they had was a arguing that it was placed on the ballot illegally.  I just don't see how they'll get an Amendment to the Constitution overturned.

It's happened before.

Naturally I'm biased, but I've always felt this argument was strong. If the court found an inherent right in the constitution, it's should to take a revision and not a 50%+1 amendment to undo it. Otherwise the constitution would be littered with contradictory amendments and the majority could vote away anything. It also must stick in the craw of people concerned about minority rights to think that a simple majority, most of whom aren't directly affected, can contradict what the court found to be an essential right in the constitution.

But an amendment is part of the Constitution.  It's no different than the rest of the Constitution other than its date.

There are two ways of amending the Constitution, and they're different. One is for things that are just additions, and not big changes (like bond measures, and such). They only need a certain number of signatures. The other is for big changes (like reintroducing slavery). Those need a supermajority in both houses of the legislature to be put on the ballot.

[Brittain33]

But an amendment is part of the Constitution.  It's no different than the rest of the Constitution other than its date.

No offense, but are you familiar with the distinction between an "amendment" and a "revision" to the California state constitution? One requires 50%, the other, two-thirds. This indicates that not all additions to the constitution are equal. The tack Brown is taking relies entirely on that distinction, making the argument that Prop 8 should be held to be a revision, not a simple amendment, because it contradicts a principle the Supreme Court has judged integral and central to the state constitution.

[Lunar]

I would normally say that the gay rights activists have zero chance at this sort of case, but since this is the same group of justices (right?) that declared gay marriage was implied in CA's Constitution, it's kind of a tossup.

O'Reilly will flip out though if the justices overturn the "people's decision."

[Holmes]

It's a good thing O'Reilly's opinion means next to nothing on this issue.

[Lunar]

It's a good thing O'Reilly's opinion means next to nothing on this issue.

Well, the public perception and outrage at "activist courts overturning a democratically decided, majoritarian issue" or whatever will mean something

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But an amendment is part of the Constitution.  It's no different than the rest of the Constitution other than its date.

No offense, but are you familiar with the distinction between an "amendment" and a "revision" to the California state constitution? One requires 50%, the other, two-thirds. This indicates that not all additions to the constitution are equal. The tack Brown is taking relies entirely on that distinction, making the argument that Prop 8 should be held to be a revision, not a simple amendment, because it contradicts a principle the Supreme Court has judged integral and central to the state constitution.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but a change to the Constitution is still a change to the Constitution.

Looking at this purely from a legal standpoint, I don't see how he can win.  I think the only chance they had was a arguing that it was placed on the ballot illegally.  I just don't see how they'll get an Amendment to the Constitution overturned.

It's happened before.

Naturally I'm biased, but I've always felt this argument was strong. If the court found an inherent right in the constitution, it's should to take a revision and not a 50%+1 amendment to undo it. Otherwise the constitution would be littered with contradictory amendments and the majority could vote away anything. It also must stick in the craw of people concerned about minority rights to think that a simple majority, most of whom aren't directly affected, can contradict what the court found to be an essential right in the constitution.

But an amendment is part of the Constitution.  It's no different than the rest of the Constitution other than its date.

There are two ways of amending the Constitution, and they're different. One is for things that are just additions, and not big changes (like bond measures, and such). They only need a certain number of signatures. The other is for big changes (like reintroducing slavery). Those need a supermajority in both houses of the legislature to be put on the ballot.

Getting it on the ballot is irrelevant (unless we're talking about whether or not it was legally on the ballot, and like I said, that's the only valid change that I see).

Amendments are Unconstitutional if they change the character of the Constitution though.  The big changes have to occur through the legislature.

For example, as I said, you can't pass an amendment that brings back slavery.

Because slavery specifically contradicts Amendment 14.  You'd then need to debate which Amendment trumps which.