Jack & Jill Politics

Today's Conversation Prop 8 Fight Rages On: What About Trans Women and Men? http://snipurl.com/iv6sw

Does this ruling make it easier to put the civil rights of minorities to a simple majority vote?

No. It is a strawman, red herring argument.

AFTERNOON OPEN THREAD IS UP!!

I wonder what Sotomayor thinks about this ruling. I can not not see it being brought up in the confirmation hearing.
Another case that is going to come out today is how Chryslers bond holders are treated. President Obama's auto recovery team is definitely challenging established bankruptcy law. In fact I go so far that since both Chryler and GM took TARP money the government is within its rights.
The business community will arm the GOP on this issue because they cannot want financial firms bonds dismissed under TARP legislation.
As TO says get out your popcorn it is going to be a hell of a confirmation party.

What kind of decision is this?

A legally binding majority one.
Based on the majority of the votes.

California Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ban

By Ashley Surdin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 26, 2009; 1:15 PM

LOS ANGELES, May 26 -- The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved constitutional amendment Tuesday that bans same-sex marriage in the state.
The court said, however, that those couples who wed in the state under an earlier opinion from the court, will be considered married.
The ruling comes after three months of deliberation and nearly a year after the court struck down state laws that similarly banned such marriages. Then, the court ruled that the laws were unconstitutional and that the unions were a "basic civil right." This time, factoring in a successful Nov. 4 ballot measure that defines marriage as a union "between a man and a woman" in the state's constitution, which trumps state laws, the court revealed its hesitancy to override the will of the people.


But Tuesday's ruling, which has been anticipated for months, hardly settles the matter. The recourse for gay rights activists now is to put the matter to voters again through their own initiative or take the matter to federal court.

On the eve of the ruling, Jennifer C. Pizer, a lawyer with the gay rights group Lambda Legal, which is representing one of the plaintiffs in the case, said advocates would look to another ballot measure. "All the legal and policy and political groups feel very strongly that the sensible course would be another ballot measure to undo Prop. 8," she said.

It's unclear how voters would respond to another ballot proposition. Some predicted that the recent legalization of same-sex marriage in Eastern states would sway California's highest court. Advocates hope those events would influence voters.

Read on

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...

The sensible course would be to let sleeping dogs lay.