I recently returned from my first cruise ever, and although it gave me a much-needed rest and a wonderful tan, it also gave me a nasty cold and a cough that will not quit. On balance, though, I highly recommend the experience.
While recuperating I couldn't help but notice that the California Supreme Court has honored the decision by California's voters not to recognize gay unions as "marriages." I previously ventured that the Court would go the other way, for however self-evident it is that a majority need not bestow benefits on a minority, modern tribunals take it upon themselves to veto the people's will whenever it deviates from the politically correct line. (Whether the people's will deviates from the law is a far distant concern, if any.) What makes this especially rewarding is that the Court predicated its decision solely on the California Constitution, which means that there is no (legitmate) basis for appealing this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. And guess what -- we have Sandra Day O'Connor to thank for it. Yes, indeed, the Justice emeritus who never met a baby she didn't want to split held that a ruling by a state supreme court is non-reviewable if supported by adequate and independent state-law grounds.
Oh, it doesn't get much better than this! I happily admit that I was wrong, wrong, wrong when predicting that the California Supreme Court would strike down Proposition 8. Time for a beer.
(P.S. - Be on the lookout for some cockeyed challenge to Proposition 8 in a federal district court, likely under the aegis of enjoining enforcement by state officials. That's a tough sell because nobody is being threatened with fines or imprisonment, so there is no real basis for an injunction, but stranger things have happened.)
While recuperating I couldn't help but notice that the California Supreme Court has honored the decision by California's voters not to recognize gay unions as "marriages." I previously ventured that the Court would go the other way, for however self-evident it is that a majority need not bestow benefits on a minority, modern tribunals take it upon themselves to veto the people's will whenever it deviates from the politically correct line. (Whether the people's will deviates from the law is a far distant concern, if any.) What makes this especially rewarding is that the Court predicated its decision solely on the California Constitution, which means that there is no (legitmate) basis for appealing this ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. And guess what -- we have Sandra Day O'Connor to thank for it. Yes, indeed, the Justice emeritus who never met a baby she didn't want to split held that a ruling by a state supreme court is non-reviewable if supported by adequate and independent state-law grounds.
Oh, it doesn't get much better than this! I happily admit that I was wrong, wrong, wrong when predicting that the California Supreme Court would strike down Proposition 8. Time for a beer.
(P.S. - Be on the lookout for some cockeyed challenge to Proposition 8 in a federal district court, likely under the aegis of enjoining enforcement by state officials. That's a tough sell because nobody is being threatened with fines or imprisonment, so there is no real basis for an injunction, but stranger things have happened.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment