An absolutely disgusting comment from a Supreme Ct. Chief Justice

[cboy4]

How can anyone with so much power and authority say something like this?

He has no business making life and death decisions.

I am beside myself. No exaggeration.

===========================================

"There have been initiatives that have taken away rights from minorities by majority vote" and have been upheld by the courts, said Chief Justice Ronald George. "Isn't that the system we have to live with?"

:wtf:

Justices seem to be leaning in favor of Prop. 8

George wrote the majority opinion in the court's 4-3 ruling in May striking down California's ban on same-sex marriages - which voters, in turn, reversed in November by approving Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/06/MNLP169S2G.DTL&hw=Prop&sn=004&sc=1000



Nominated by Gov George Deukmejian (R)

[BzaDem]

1. I don't know that this is as it seems.

As you put, he not only voted for the decision to allow gay marriage (which was thrown out by Prop 8), but he actually wrote that decision.

In that statement, I think he was simply citing historical fact. He wasn't saying that he liked the idea of taking away minority rights via majority vote, or that he liked the idea of upholding such ballot initiatives; he was just stating that it has happened, and it has been upheld (in the past). This was said in the heat of the oral argument; it's not like he is trying to convince everyone that taking away minority rights is a good idea.

If he actually did like the idea of taking away minority rights by popular vote, that would be another matter.

[cboy4]

3. There's no qualifier in that statement. He essentially said,

who gives a damn about equal protection, who gives a damn about the majority voting on the rights of the oppressed?

A qualifier that his hands are tied under the law is a more acceptable response, than his tough shit comment.

The bottom line is this is a revision of the constitution and therefore illegal. Something else he fails to acknowledge.

What a horrible person.

[ThomWV]

11. Well, you're dead wrong with that assertion and in fact your entire post is off base

The qualifier lies in the statement he was responding to and its something you omitted. You weren't the only one who watched the argument and anyone who did watch it knows that you aren't providing the comment in the context it was presented and it is unreasonable for you to take that comment out of that context. In fact the colloquy what was taking place dealt with both the questions of had this happened in the past and would/should/could it happen again in the future.

[cboy4]

13. Yea, I know what he was saying. Come back to the voters and

beg for your rights.

He just didn't have the balls to come out and say it.

What a slimy bastard he is.

[ixion]

2. well, it's the truth... that doesn't make it right, and

doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed, but at the moment, that's the way things work.

Unless, of course, the system is rigged, in which case the converse would be true.

[cboy4]

4. The argument is that this is a revision of the constitution which

is not legal by means of California's crooked amendment system.

Opponents argued that Prop. 8 was not merely a constitutional amendment, which can be circulated as an initiative for voter approval, but was a revision of the Constitution, which requires approval from either two-thirds of the Legislature or delegates to a constitutional convention to reach the ballot.


Pressed to define the difference, Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, lawyer for one group of same-sex couples, said that when a majority repeals a fundamental right from a group "historically subject to discrimination," that's a revision.

[Divine Discontent]

5. good post cboy, I too was taken aback by that specific comment when I read it the other day

it's disgusting - I thought the courts stepped in to protect the rights of the minority when the majority overstepped THEIR rights to say the minority doesn't deserve equal rights.

:hug:

[cboy4]

6. Thanks. I know, I'm totally exasperated and feel like there's no

hope if the fricken high court can't even straighten things out.

I like this quote:

"A guarantee of equality that is subject to exceptions by the majority is no guarantee at all."

-- Therese Stewart, San Francisco's chief deputy city attorney

[cboy4]

7. And you gotta love this

[and-justice-for-all]

8. One would think that since the FC struck down California ban..

that Prop 8 should have never been voted on to begin with.

[jody]

9. Our Constitution says "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government".

Doesn't that mean laws are established by a majority of votes in state legislatures except for inalienable/unalienable rights that protect a minority against the tyranny of a simple majority?

Is that the intent of the statement by Chief Justice Ronald George?

[Igel]

16. How could it?

The phrase was quite compatible with discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ethnicity, and religion for years.

It just means that there are representatives that make the laws, by whatever rules those august bodies may devise for their own functioning. It's a mediated democracy; democracy by itself contains no automatic provisions for minority rights.

[jody]

17. I see we disagree. Have a wonderful day. n/t

[varkam]

10. I would like to know what the context of it is.

Was he asking the question of Starr's OC?

[ThomWV]

12. As well you should

C-Span showed the entire hearing yesterday. The reply that is the point of the orignial post is taken out of context, or to be more on point about it no context at all was provided for you to understand the response. It was not as it appears here.

[cboy4]

14. That's an odd statement. How can that quote be taken out of

context?

He's saying there's standing as to why California voters can change the constitution.

He has the power, however, to rule it's a revision in which the voters do not.

And the majority deciding on the rights of a minority is an example of a revision, according to our lawyers.

The Chief Justice would rather just be lazy and gutless, rather than take a stand like he did the first time.

[varkam]

15. Well, for instance...

if he was pitching a softball to counsel during oral arguments, then it would seem considerably less outrageous than you're making it out to be.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Californians please, for the love of Mike, take note

The last line of the OP contains the wisdom CA must learn. "Nominated by Gov George Deukmejian (R)".
California is a state deluded, thinking that it is and will remain the liberal stronghold it was decades ago, holding that image in spite of constantly electing Republicans to the highest office. Pete Wilson, Deukemejian, Arnold, really, a Democratic Gov is a rare thing in CA, the likes of Davis given short shrift and shown the door, all possible grace extened to Arnold, two terms, no real challenge from anyone.
Years of electing Republicans has an effect. Years of ignoring the conservative leanings of the State has a cost. The complacency has a cost. The GLBT people stuck in CA are paying that cost, for all the lazy, self interested Democrats in that failing state. Who will be next? Under Wilson it was the Mexicans, now it is gay folk, but who will you Californians accept as the next scape goat in a string of goats set up for scaping?
Hint: Blue States elect Blue Govs. CA elects Red Govs. With 'Democratic' votes, no less. CA Democrats voted for Prop 8, for Arnold, for Arnold again, and so on. With Democrats like these, who needs real Republicans?
Wake up and organize!