Morning News – California Supreme Court Upholds Prop 8
In a move that surprised many, the California State Supreme Court upheld Proposition on Tuesday. BUT they let existing marriages stand. Which seems odd to me. How can you have it both ways? I think it’s beacuse the ruling doesn’t mean the court believes that Prop. 8 is correct, at least as far as I can tell. “The 6-1 decision upholding Prop. 8 was issued by the same court that declared a year ago that a state law defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violated the right to choose one’s spouse and discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation,” says the San Francisco Chronicle. So the voters voted for it, and while it may be wrong, that’s the law of the land. If I’ve got that wrong, I’m sure someone will let me know. (Be kind. I’m a New Yorker and we’re very fragile.)
Now, the story that I know everyone was waiting for. An Alaskan man won the 2009 World Beard and Moustache Championships. This happened on Saturday, but the news only just made it to CNN. That’s because it is VERY VERY IMPORTANT news. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin had no comment.
In the tech sector, Palm continues to botch the launch of the Palm Pre. Wired reports on a leaked document that actually includes the phrase “We Can
Thanks, Lee!
“The principal issue before us (Prop 8)concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution.”
You can read the entire court opinion here:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/
“Frankfurter strongly opposed the death penalty.” That’s an unintentionally funny sentence. I mean, it’s not funny, the topic, but the name… OK, I’m a 10 year old.
I’m interested in the legal reasoning as well. Maybe someone more legally minded will explain it to me.
I’m really interested to see the Prop. 8 opinion. The way judicial review works, the court can’t strike something down just because they feel it is ethically wrong – it has to be legally wrong, too. My favorite legal opinion was written by Justice Frankfurter (no, I promise, this is not a joke), upholding the death penalty in a horrific case where a young man had been sentenced to death by electrocution, and they had tried, and failed, several times to kill him on one of these Louisiana electric-chairs-in-the-back-of-a-truck (quite literally). Frankfurter strongly opposed the death penalty. He was the swing vote here. But he could not find sufficient legal precedent to support his views. He was compelled, against his own feelings and convictions, to write this opinion and sentence the young man again. It is a moving, heartwrenching opinion – and it gives me some idea of what judges with a conscience might have to face, if they are to uphold the ethics of their profession.
I’m not saying the CA court here had a similar crisis, or even that they made the legally correct call. But I’d be curious to know.