Comments on: California Supreme Court upholds Prop 8 http://www.bookwormroom.com/2009/05/26/california-supreme-court-upholds-prop-8/ Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:48:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: suek http://www.bookwormroom.com/2009/05/26/california-supreme-court-upholds-prop-8/comment-page-1/#comment-49945 suek Tue, 26 May 2009 21:19:16 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=6631#comment-49945 Re: the 18,000 still valid marriages... Got thinking about this... If the Calif Supremes recognize the validity of the Proposition, then wasn't it valid from the time it was approved? If that's true, how can the marriages be valid? Re: the 18,000 still valid marriages…

Got thinking about this…

If the Calif Supremes recognize the validity of the Proposition, then wasn’t it valid from the time it was approved? If that’s true, how can the marriages be valid?

]]> By: suek http://www.bookwormroom.com/2009/05/26/california-supreme-court-upholds-prop-8/comment-page-1/#comment-49925 suek Tue, 26 May 2009 18:18:27 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=6631#comment-49925 Re the happy face.... It's a sneak liberal attack...!!! Re the happy face….

It’s a sneak liberal attack…!!!

]]> By: SADIE http://www.bookwormroom.com/2009/05/26/california-supreme-court-upholds-prop-8/comment-page-1/#comment-49923 SADIE Tue, 26 May 2009 17:53:04 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=6631#comment-49923 p.s. I have no idea why when I typed in number eight a happy face showed up. p.s. I have no idea why when I typed in number eight a happy face showed up.

]]> By: SADIE http://www.bookwormroom.com/2009/05/26/california-supreme-court-upholds-prop-8/comment-page-1/#comment-49922 SADIE Tue, 26 May 2009 17:52:02 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=6631#comment-49922 I am not sure of the legal aspect of this decision, so I am asking would it (upholding Prop 8) be like a 'grandfather clause'. I live in a condominium, no dogs/cats allowed. Prior to the rule there were several pets who are able to remain with their owners, but no new pets allowed. I am not sure of the legal aspect of this decision, so I am asking would it (upholding Prop 8) be like a ‘grandfather clause’. I live in a condominium, no dogs/cats allowed. Prior to the rule there were several pets who are able to remain with their owners, but no new pets allowed.

]]> By: Charles Martel http://www.bookwormroom.com/2009/05/26/california-supreme-court-upholds-prop-8/comment-page-1/#comment-49920 Charles Martel Tue, 26 May 2009 17:22:51 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=6631#comment-49920 <blockquote>It’s very weird, though, that there will be 18,000 legal same-sex marriages, and no others. That in itself is a lawsuit in the making."</blockquote> That may well be what the court intended. The reason why it did not invalidate the 18,000 same-sex marriages is because that would have invalidated the court's original presumptuous finding of a "right" that---who woulda figured?---had been embedded in the California constitution all this time. So, if somebody sues, the court will get to revisit the matter. Who's to say it won't at that point mumble something about "justice denied" and "this isn't in the spirit of our constitution" and reverse itself and declare Prop. 8 unconstitutional after all? Then what? A lawsuit against the California supremes before the Sotomayor court?

It’s very weird, though, that there will be 18,000 legal same-sex marriages, and no others. That in itself is a lawsuit in the making.”

That may well be what the court intended. The reason why it did not invalidate the 18,000 same-sex marriages is because that would have invalidated the court’s original presumptuous finding of a “right” that—who woulda figured?—had been embedded in the California constitution all this time.

So, if somebody sues, the court will get to revisit the matter. Who’s to say it won’t at that point mumble something about “justice denied” and “this isn’t in the spirit of our constitution” and reverse itself and declare Prop. 8 unconstitutional after all?

Then what? A lawsuit against the California supremes before the Sotomayor court?

]]>