There’s heavy expectation that the Supreme Court will rule on whether to accept the lawsuits that seek to overturn Proposition 8 this afternoon. The court is reviewing the briefs filed by marriage-equality advocates that argue that the Proposition failed to follow the correct process for submitting an amendment that would effectively deny the established rights of a minority. [OnTop]
California Supreme Court Likely To Rule on Prop. 8 Today
Help make sure LGBTQ+ stories are being told...
We can't rely on mainstream media to tell our stories. That's why we don't lock Queerty articles behind a paywall. Will you support our mission with a contribution today?
Cancel anytime · Proudly LGBTQ+ owned and operated
fredo777
Hope so. I’m tired of waiting.
Wish they’d get a move on.
alex the sea turtle
I don’t think they will decide to over turn it today. They may mearly decide which if any of the lawsuits will go forward. They may also set dates for following hearings on the matter.
DaveO
Are they acutally ruling on Prop 8? Or are they ruling on whether to rule on Prop 8?
Jon B
They can’t decide the case on the merrits yet. They haven’t even recieved opposition briefs. They are deciding whether to accept the cases, remand them to lower courts, or dismiss them outright.
JPinWeHo
@ Jon B – correct, they are not ruling on the merits, just whether they will hear argument on the Prop 8 challenge. However, they will also likely rule on whether to prevent Prop 8 from being enforced until they decide the merits (although odds are they will deny the request for a stay).
The Gay Numbers
Regardless, the refusal to stay will be spun as a victory by the Pro 8 people , and will be misunderstood by the press. I’ve been reading several articles out from the press on legal questions. Needless to say- their understanding of the situation is he said, she said.
michael
What would be interesting is if the court eventually did rule that prop. 8 was illegal. Can you imagine the real anarchy? I mean they
jump all over us for standing up and demonstrating, we would be nothing compared to those people. Of course I do hope they rule it to be illegal, but watching those hypocrites scream their heads off would be hilarious.
mlp
Your headline is misleading. They are not ruling on Prop 8 today, they are only decided whether or not to hear the cases brought before them.
JPinWeHo
@ Gay Numbers – Does it matter if Pro 8 people spin the refusal to stay? In the end, its going to be the Court that decides this one, not public opinion.
Jaroslaw
I can’t imagine that Prop 8 would be ruled invalid. How would the court ever come to that conclusion if they can’t even follow their own rules. The California constitution says major changes (amendments of which Prop 8 is an example) must go through the legislature. Minor changes are called REVISIONS and those can go through the ballot initiative process.
So, the way I understand this, the court should have not ever let Prop 8 on the ballot to start with – Lambda Legal alone or with others and if I’m mistaken with the names, someone big, filed a brief to keep it off. And obviously the CA supremes denied it.
Like I’ve always said, law is for lawyers not for the people. Voltaire had a great quote – There will not be a lawyer in heaven until hell is full!
JPinWeHo
@Jaroslaw: a couple of things. First, minor changes are amendments, major changes are revisions, not vice-versa. Second, the distinction between what is an amendment and a revision is not as clear as you would think. Certain constitutional initiates which one would think are major(such as declaring that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment) have been held to be merely amendments, not revisions.
As for the prior legal challenge to Prop 8, the CA Supreme Court rightly decided not to consider it – it has no authority to make a ruling on an issue that has not occurred yet (i.e. on an issue that is not “ripe” for decision). Because Prop 8 had not passed, the Court simply held that there was no controversy for it to decide. If courts did not restrain themselves in this way, they would be issuing all sorts of advisory opinions on controversies that have not happened yet. It’s ConLaw 101.
And seriously – attorneys have been responsible for many of the major civil rights decisions that have come down over the years, we’re not all bad.
Paul
@JPinWeHo: Thank you. I’m not sure what’s worse: the rabid Yes on 8 supporters or people who blithely make comments about Con Law without having suffered through three years at a reputable law school.
The CA Supremes couldn’t have ruled on a Prop 8 challenge before the proposition passed because, as JPinWeHo explains, it’s not considered “ripe” for adjudication. Courts in the United States cannot issue advisory opinions; to do so violates the “case and controversy” requirement of the Constitution.
(Interestingly, in Canada, when lawmakers wanted an opinion on whether prohibiting gay marriage would violate Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, they were allowed to ask the Canadian Supreme Court, who, in their good judgment, replied: Yes.)
Jaroslaw
OK, JP & Paul – sorry, if I mixed up revision vs. amendment. Either way, Lambda (or whomever)filed a motion to make the court not put it on the ballot. I seriously doubt that they would have filed the motion if they didn’t think it there wasn’t a legal basis to file it. Or if they did, then that adds to the fuel of my basic opinion that law is for lawyers.
No of course all lawyers are not bad just like with everyone else. There are good and bad. But Voltaire, not me, is the one who mad the crack about hell – that said, often common witticisms and sayings have some basis in fact. I did work for an attorney firm for some time, had friends who worked for lawyers and friends who ARE lawyers(one particular friend used to get to this firm two hours early, because if you were one minute late one time, you got docked a half a days pay – the only place I ever knew to do that. how Interesting) – anyway, seems many of my lawyer friends would fight tooth and nail seemingly mortal enemies in the court room and were actually good buddies after hours. I realize it is a job, but it is an odd way to do business just the same.
As for lawyers being responsible for civil rights decisions….I don’t claim to have a body of research at hand; but I do read a lot and watch a lot of PBS and it seems to me that the Supreme Court follows public opinion as much as it makes it. The courts of all types have made all kinds of bad decisions over the years; it is a human institution. Further, and I don’t know if I’ll be able to express in writing what I’m thinking, but lawyers, judges etc. are people who are products of their time. They cannot move any faster than the most “enlightened” person and probably do so a lot slower in most instances. In short, the time has to be right and someone has to be there to do it. Mostly. Of course, there have been pioneers and people who pushed the envelope but just as often, surely, a backlash was created and movements and progressive ideas went backwards.
For your consideration…….
Jaroslaw
sorry to be so long, but in my third paragraph, I was referring to bad examples of SCOTUS decisions during the Civil War period etc. Which is not to say all decisions were bad etc. But some were unthinkable – but these were all White men, some of whom thought slavery was perfectly ok. Products of their time…..