tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7330866094623663688.post2356980477922694555..comments2010-04-27T11:23:21.398-07:00Comments on Fringes of Lunacy: Being a judge ties your handsFenixmagichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09217206591409063133noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7330866094623663688.post-8886379625321973992009-05-27T17:47:32.669-07:002009-05-27T17:47:32.669-07:00I think that they anticipated that if losing in th...I think that they anticipated that if losing in the California Supreme court with a constitutional argument that they would eventually have an appeal to the Supreme Court that shows justiciable cause because it has a direct constitutional application and interpretation. That ensures a hearing, at least, and forces the court to consider it as a constitutional violation.<br /><br />This, like civil rights, won't be solved by state courts. It will be resolved by the Supreme Court on issues of equality.<br /><br />It looks like what the court now actually did wasn't uphold the propositions definitions. It actually just protected the proposition's existence. From the summaries of commentary I have read, the judges didn't go into explanations of purpose for the particular law, but rather defended the proposition itself and upheld the 'idea' of a proposition and the court not being above voter actions.<br /><br />The good part about this is if they follow precedence and the next time voters propose a proposition that passes and re-establishes same sex marriage, they'll be bound to support that one, too, in its place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7330866094623663688.post-78909656976209326452009-05-27T09:38:18.166-07:002009-05-27T09:38:18.166-07:00don't stop thinking like a hero. The moment you g...don't stop thinking like a hero. The moment you get jaded you become one of those lawyers everyone jokes about.Koryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12359855844113965258noreply@blogger.com