No court can rule to uphold a law that actually eliminates an assumed right

California gets it right.

LOS ANGELES – A federal appeals court panel ruled on Tuesday that a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in California violated the Constitution, all but ensuring that the case will proceed to the United States Supreme Court.

I’ve a dress put away (it’s getting rather dated) to wear on the day Ed and Steve can get married. I do think 40 years is a long enough engagement, don’t you?

“This is a huge day: The United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, which represents nine states and certain territories, has decided that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional,” said Theodore B. Olson, one of the attorneys representing the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which challenged Proposition 8. Speaking at a news conference here Tuesday morning, Mr. Olson said he was now “very confident” the Supreme Court would uphold this decision and nullify the voter initiative.

Olson is partnered with Atty. David Boise in this suit. Remember those guys? They  were the opposing counsel who argued Bush v Gore in the Supreme Court. They’re on the same side in this one. Adversaries one day, partners another day – that’s as it should be in our civic life. This suit was filed three years ago with the stated intention of taking it to the Supreme Court. So far, so good.

(Are crinolines back in style?)

11 responses to “No court can rule to uphold a law that actually eliminates an assumed right

  1. They better be as I plan on wearing one too.


  2. Progress! This gladdened my heart today.


  3. Pingback: “The States” Have De Facto Control Over The General Government: States May Nullify U.S. Supreme Court Ruling On Obamacare! | Political Vel Craft

  4. I guess it’s going to come down to which way Justice Kennedy votes.


  5. What does the dress look like? Details!!


  6. Even white evangelicals (whose loathing of Catholics is only slightly less acute than their hatred of Jews, non-whites, and homosexuals) approve of the recent trend of only putting Catholics on the Supreme Court. The obvious reason is to make that body demented in exactly the right way. While no court following the rules (you know, interpret the Constitution, not change the meaning to fit your freakish worldview) could rule to uphold a law that eliminates a right, the Citizens United ruling shows that the Roberts Court has no intention of following the rules.

    (Note: I was even creeped out by the Catholics-only weirdness when I was ostensibly a Catholic)


    • I was creeped out too when I first noticed the Court makeup, around the time Kagan was appointed. It’s quite remarkable. And I was raised Catholic and am old enough to remember when it was unthinkable to have a Jew or a Catholic on the Court.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s