NationStates Jolt Archive

The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments that the recently passed Proposition 8 was, in fact, in violation of California law. The argument goes that, since the California Constitution had already be interpreted to allow for same sex marriage under the equal protection clause, that to take that away would not be merely a revision of the constitution, but would change the "fundamental scope" of the constitution, by radically altering the function of the equal protection clause.

Such amendments, unlike mere revisions which require only a majority of votes to pass, must first be voted for by 2/3 of the state legislature. Opponents to Proposition 8 argue that since it never went through the legislature, and is such a fundamental change as to require that step, it was not passed legally, and is thus invalid.

Arguments may begin as early as March. The court, however, declined to order the state to continue issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples in the interrum.

Source (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/19/gay.marriage/index.html).

So, the process continues. Thoughts?

Do you think there's any chance that the California Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8?

not likely. too many previous amendments could be affected (over 500)

Do you think there's any chance that the California Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8?

I think it's a solid argument on their part.

I think it's a good argument, but I can't even guess at how likely the court is to decide one way or the other. But as long as the process is continuing, that is a good thing. At least the Court agreed to hear the case.

Stephen Hopkins, 1776 (musical): Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything.

It would be nice to allow people to marry whomever the hell they want, already.

The only argument that could be brought against Proposition 8 is that it is bigoted and oppressive. That argument has failed, and it is unlikely another could take its place.

So assuming a victory, the only way to then defeat same-sex marriage within the state would be through a constitutional convention, no?

The only argument that could be brought against Proposition 8 is that it is bigoted and oppressive.

Had you bothered to read my post you would understand that there's quite another argument that can, and is, being made.

So assuming a victory, the only way to then defeat same-sex marriage within the state would be through a constitutional convention, no?

essentially, yes, that's correct.

Its such a damn shame that prop 8 passed in the first place, I thought as the democrats obliterated the republicans that there was no way such an intolerant piece of legislation could pass.

what is the likelihood that the legislation will be repealed does anyone know?

Had you bothered to read my post you would understand that there's quite another argument that can, and is, being made.

I doubt it will work, though; there would be a hostile majority objecting. But in ten or twenty years, the majority will likely have a different opinion, which will cause homosexual marriage to be legalized in California.

I thought as the democrats obliterated the republicans that there was no way such an intolerant piece of legislation could pass.

Why? Mr. "Change" himself is against same-sex marriage.

Its such a damn shame that prop 8 passed in the first place, I thought as the democrats obliterated the republicans that there was no way such an intolerant piece of legislation could pass.

what is the likelihood that the legislation will be repealed does anyone know?

god, it's hard to say. Keep in mind that the argument is going in front of the very same court that found same sex marriage was a right in california in the first place.

On the other hand, it was a 4-3 decision. If the 3 judges who originally found it wasn't a right, are pretty likely to uphold Prop 8, because, in their view, it was not a right, thus restricting it can't be altering the constitution by taking a right away that didn't exist.

Now, that means that all 4 judges who believed it was a right, must also feel that taking such a right away constituted a fundamental revision. If one of them believes it is a right, but not a revision requiring a convention, then...

On the other hand, one or more of the three who voted against it, may now uphold the right under stare decisis.

I doubt it will work, though; there would be a hostile majority objecting

So what? There was a hostile majority objecting in the first place.

So what? There was a hostile majority objecting in the first place.

Which is why it had be to voted upon by the public.

Interesting. I'm not knowledgeable enough when it comes to law to understand whether or not the argument being made is a good one, but I'm glad to see Prop 8 getting challenged, anyway.

Which is why it had be voted upon by the public.

the sound you hear is the point rushing RIGHT over your head.

I'm hoping that it's struck down in court, but I'm not betting on it.

Note that the anti-prop 8 group is only using arguments that stem from the California Constitution (a tediously long and convoluted piece of work), so as not to let it go before the US supreme court, which would likely be hostile to their cause.

If Prop 8 survives court, there will be a repeal attempt in 2 years. If that fails, there will be a repeal effort at the next opportunity.

the sound you hear is the point rushing RIGHT over your head.

Are you referring to a court majority?

Do you think there's any chance that the California Supreme Court strikes down Prop 8?I think the odds are in favor, actually. To say that it is procedurally proper for 50.1% to take away rights from 49.9% is to say that the equal-protection clause has not just amended, but abolished: it no longer means anything, if under no circumstances would it protect any minority from any majority.

Keep in mind that this is the same court that originally struck down the law saying gays couldnt marry.


I dont know what will happen. But, if it does get struck down, the howls of rage from the bigots who danced at Prop 8's passing will be fucking epic.
Are you referring to a court majority?

There it goes again.

This sounds hopeful, but I'm not going to get my hopes up. I'm too cynical for that.

Neo, I think you got your terms mixed. It's amendments that can pass through the ballot initiative process and majority vote. It's a revision that needs a 2/3's vote of the legislature and then a vote of the public or a constitutional convention.

Neo, I think you got your terms mixed. It's amendments that can pass through the ballot initiative process and majority vote. It's a revision that needs a 2/3's vote of the legislature and then a vote of the public or a constitutional convention.

You are correct.

I doubt it will work, though; there would be a hostile majority objecting. But in ten or twenty years, the majority will likely have a different opinion, which will cause homosexual marriage to be legalized in California.

Why does the state majority matter? This is now a court case...only the opinions of the judges matter. They can object till they're blue in the face...it just doesn't matter.

not likely. too many previous amendments could be affected (over 500)

The only argument that could be brought against Proposition 8 is that it is bigoted and oppressive. That argument has failed, and it is unlikely another could take its place.

And this is why laymen should not attempt to practice law.

And this is why laymen should not attempt to practice law.

I do love NSG's many many faux lawyers, dont you my dear?

I dont know what will happen. But, if it does get struck down, the howls of rage from the bigots who danced at Prop 8's passing will be fucking epic.

And if they bitch and howl about California's "intolerance" then we'll have something on par with the British National Party complaining about fascism in terms of Epic Lulz.

And if they bitch and howl about California's "intolerance" then we'll have something on par with the British National Party complaining about fascism in terms of Epic Lulz.

It will be awesome. Probably more fun then when Barrack Obama won.

I do love NSG's many many faux lawyers, dont you my dear?

No.

But I'd be amused to see them representing themselves.

No.

But I'd be amused to see them representing themselves.

I should clarify. By "love" I meant "infuriated by".

Keep in mind that this is the same court that originally struck down the law saying gays couldnt marry.


I dont know what will happen. But, if it does get struck down, the howls of rage from the bigots who danced at Prop 8's passing will be fucking epic.


There it goes again.

Yeah, but the resulting schadenfreude for the rest of us will be more so.

Seriously? No one has anything else to say on this? This is fucking AWESOME news. It's not just going to go away! This is going to be dealt with fairly freaking swiftly as judicial matters go, and I very much believe that the widespread public backlash is a major cause of that.

No.

But I'd be amused to see them representing themselves.

More than amused. That'd make an outstanding game show. :)

Seriously? No one has anything else to say on this? This is fucking AWESOME news. It's not just going to go away! This is going to be dealt with fairly freaking swiftly as judicial matters go, and I very much believe that the widespread public backlash is a major cause of that.

Supreme Court Justices are subject to politics too.

fairly freaking swiftly as judicial matters go
Half a year?

Supreme Court Justices are subject to politics too.
Of course they are.
Half a year?
Yes.

Frick, it can take at least that long to challenge to challenge a petty theft charge.

Half a year?

To the state supreme court? Yes, six months is incredibly fast.

To the state supreme court? Yes, six months is incredibly fast.
OH YES, I know. I was asking if anybody thought it was actually realistic to think they would do all their hearings, and wade through all the shithold of "friend of the court" briefs they're going to be buried in, and talk amongst themselves, and come up with a ruling, that they are going to want to word very very carefully since it is going to be picked apart savagely no matter which way they go-- in six months or less?

OH YES, I know. I was asking if anybody thought it was actually realistic to think they would do all their hearings, and wade through all the shithold of "friend of the court" briefs they're going to be buried in, and talk amongst themselves, and come up with a ruling, that they are going to want to word very very carefully since it is going to be picked apart savagely no matter which way they go-- in six months or less?

Getting your 'foot in the door' in that time is what I was referring to.

Seriously? No one has anything else to say on this? This is fucking AWESOME news. It's not just going to go away! This is going to be dealt with fairly freaking swiftly as judicial matters go, and I very much believe that the widespread public backlash is a major cause of that.
it was never just going to go away.

it was only a matter of what the next move would be.

it was never just going to go away.

it was only a matter of what the next move would be.

I didn't expect the court to agree to hear this quite yet.

For anyone who cares, the California Supreme Court's order regarding the case and the various briefs that were filed can be found here (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm).

Danke, I'm too fucking tired to do any digging on my own tonight.

Interesting group of interveners. Not surprised to see the Kingdom of Heaven in their on the anti side.

Jesus fucking clooney frog on a stick, they're quoting scripture in a request for a stay. Someone shoot me. And so many fucking exclamation marks. I'm embarassed for them.

Holy sweet shitsticks...Genisis as an exhibit....and submitted by the Heiress to The Almighty Eternal Creator. Wow.

For anyone who cares, the California Supreme Court's order regarding the case and the various briefs that were filed can be found here (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/prop8.htm).

Pursuant to the Court's order, the issues to be briefed and argued in these matters are as follows:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constituties a revision of, rather than an amendment to the California Constitution?

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separations of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is the effect, if any on the marraiges of same sex couples performed prior to the adoption of Propostion 8?

Danke, I'm too fucking tired to do any digging on my own tonight.

Interesting group of interveners. Not surprised to see the Kingdom of Heaven in their on the anti side.

Jesus fucking clooney frog on a stick, they're quoting scripture in a request for a stay. Someone shoot me. And so many fucking exclamation marks. I'm embarassed for them.

Holy sweet shitsticks...Genisis as an exhibit....and submitted by the Heiress to The Almighty Eternal Creator. Wow.
wow thats a long list of nonsense that they pulled together pretty quickly.

im impressed that people that fanatical can put so many actual sentences together even if they dont make much sense as a group.

wow thats a long list of nonsense that they pulled together pretty quickly.

im impressed that people that fanatical can put so many actual sentences together even if they dont make much sense as a group.
Don't make the mistake of thinking they're stupid. That's what doomed the no on 8 campaign in the first place.

And this is why laymen should not attempt to practice law.

Except the courts already ruled this is an acceptable amendment back in august.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/17/local/me-gaymarriage17

this is why people who don't read the news should STFU.

Except the courts already ruled this is an acceptable amendment back in august.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/17/local/me-gaymarriage17

this is why people who don't read the news should STFU.

Saying its allowed on the ballot and allowed in the constitution are different.

Except the courts already ruled this is an acceptable amendment back in august.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/17/local/me-gaymarriage17

this is why people who don't read the news should STFU.

And this is why people who don't understand what they read should STFU.

Denial of a petition to take Prop. 8 off the the ballot is NOT a ruling that Prop. 8 is an acceptable amendment.

And this is why people who don't understand what they read should STFU.

Denial of a petition to take Prop. 8 off the the ballot is NOT a ruling that Prop. 8 is an acceptable amendment.

except the challenge was about if prop was or was not an acceptable amendment or should it only be allowed as a revision.
So yes they did rule already it was an acceptable amendment. point and match. so GTFO

except the challenge was about if prop was or was not an acceptable amendment or should it only be allowed as a revision.
So yes they did rule already it was an acceptable amendment. point and match. so GTFO

Faux Laywer, exhibit A.


If the supreme court is hearing the case again, chances are they were different cases.

And this is why people who don't understand what they read should STFU.

Denial of a petition to take Prop. 8 off the the ballot is NOT a ruling that Prop. 8 is an acceptable amendment.
That's a little weird, though, even if it's according to Hoyle. (I've been meaning to use that expression.) What would the court have to say in this new case to make it not just be a restatement of their original position, when they said same-sex marriages were legal?

Guys, may want to tone down the harshness about the lawyer argument. It's getting a little too close to flaming.

except the challenge was about if prop was or was not an acceptable amendment or should it only be allowed as a revision.
So yes they did rule already it was an acceptable amendment. point and match. so GTFO

*sigh*

If the Court has already heard and decided the issue, pray tell why it just took up the issue and ordered briefing and argument?

As for what was decided earlier, Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Pre-election_legal_challenges) breaks it down for you (emphasis added):

On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot. The petition asserted the proposition should not be on the ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Opponents also argued that the petitions circulated to qualify the measure for the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court denied the petition without comment.[20] As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity. (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005-1006.) The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved, and a new petition arguing that Proposition 8 is a revision was filed by civil rights groups on November 5, 2008.[21]



"point and match. GTFO"

This is awesome. Mind you, if it passes, it will only add to the "activist judges" claims the right makes.

*sigh*

If the Court has already heard and decided the issue, pray tell why it just took up the issue and ordered briefing and argument?

As for what was decided earlier, Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Pre-election_legal_challenges) breaks it down for you (emphasis added):

On July 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied a petition calling for the removal of Proposition 8 from the November ballot. The petition asserted the proposition should not be on the ballot on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters. Opponents also argued that the petitions circulated to qualify the measure for the ballot inaccurately summarized its effect. The court denied the petition without comment.[20] As a general rule, it is improper for courts to adjudicate pre-election challenges to a measure's substantive validity. (Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005-1006.) The question of whether Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment or constitutional revision remains unresolved, and a new petition arguing that Proposition 8 is a revision was filed by civil rights groups on November 5, 2008.[21]



"point and match. GTFO"

If the court made no comment.
the rest is the opinion of a reporter. and if he belongs to one of the top ten news papers in California it is company line to oppose prop 8.
If the court was not going adjudicate on the matter they would have not heard the case. The fact they have heard the case means they have adjudicated. logic declares me the winner. now go back to your love in hippie.

If the court made no comment.
the rest is the opinion of a reporter. and if he belongs to one of the top ten news papers in California it is company line to oppose prop 8.
If the court was not going adjudicate on the matter they would have not heard the case. The fact they have heard the case means they have adjudicated. logic declares me the winner. now go back to your love in hippie.

I really don't think you know how petitions work, or what adjudicate means. The matter of whether it is constitutional or not has not been adjudicated.

If the court made no comment.
the rest is the opinion of a reporter. and if he belongs to one of the top ten news papers in California it is company line to oppose prop 8.
If the court was not going adjudicate on the matter they would have not heard the case. The fact they have heard the case means they have adjudicated. logic declares me the winner. now go back to your love in hippie.

ROTFLASTC

First, I note you fail to answer the question of why, if the Court has already decided the matter, the Court just issued an order (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/S168047_S168066_S168078-11-19-08_ORDER.pdf) demanding that the proponents of Prop 8 SHOW CAUSE as to why the opponents of Prop. 8 should not be granted the relief they request. I assume the reason you didn't answer this point was because there is no answer other than the Court has NOT already adjudicated the matter.

Second, courts refuse to hear issues prematurely all the time. See, e.g., ripeness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripeness). Refusal to decide the matter of the appropriateness of Prop. 8 prior to the vote is NOT THE SAME as deciding that Prop. 8 was appropriate. As Wiki correctly reported, the California Supreme Court has previously held that it doesn't generally won't review the constitutionality of a ballot proposition prior to an election. See, e.g., Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005 ("Past California decisions have observed that, as a general rule, 'it is usually more appropriate to review constitutional and other challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election rather than to disrupt the electoral process by preventing the exercise of the people's franchise, in the absence of some clear showing of invalidity.' (Brosnahan v. Eu (1982) 31 Cal.3d 1, 4 (Brosnahan I).)")

Third, your own logic lets you down. The Court didn't hear the case before. They refused to hear the petition without comment. Thus they didn't adjudicate the matter.

Fourth, bias of reporters aside, can you point to anything in the article you cited that says the Court actually ruled on the issue at hand?

It's like watching Mike Tyson and Kimbo Slice beat up Andy Dick.

*pops some popcorn*

More than amused. That'd make an outstanding game show. :)
And the number one defense:

"He NEEDED killin'!"

And the number one defense:

"He NEEDED killin'!"

"Objection, Your Honor!"

"Overruled! Now you must crawl through the snake pit!"

"Shit!"

Except the courts already ruled this is an acceptable amendment back in august.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/17/local/me-gaymarriage17

this is why people who don't read the news should STFU.

You're funny when you don't understand what you're talking about.

this is why people who don't read the news should STFU.

so GTFO

now go back to your love in hippie.

I find you in contempt of forum.
1 day in the cooler.

(in other words, warned for flaming, enjoy your one day vacation.)

Excellent use of tv-judge lingo, Kat :D

Excellent use of tv-judge lingo, Kat :D
Don't expect me to call "order in the forum!" I know better.

Don't expect me to call "order in the forum!" I know better.

I always liked the visual of a judge getting absolutely apoplectic calling for order in the court as a disco ball descends from the courtroom ceiling, whilst showgirls gyrate with albino anacondas on their shoulders and midgets wrestle in green jello as Zsa Zsa Gabor performs oral sex on Henry Kissinger while the cop she slapped rips off his velcro uniform to reveal buttless chaps and nipple piercings.

I'm fairly certain I saw that somewhere.

Seriously? No one has anything else to say on this? This is fucking AWESOME news. It's not just going to go away! This is going to be dealt with fairly freaking swiftly as judicial matters go, and I very much believe that the widespread public backlash is a major cause of that.
That's very true. I am actually pretty amazed it's been scheduled so quickly.

Danke, I'm too fucking tired to do any digging on my own tonight.

Interesting group of interveners. Not surprised to see the Kingdom of Heaven in their on the anti side.

Jesus fucking clooney frog on a stick, they're quoting scripture in a request for a stay. Someone shoot me. And so many fucking exclamation marks. I'm embarassed for them.

Holy sweet shitsticks...Genisis as an exhibit....and submitted by the Heiress to The Almighty Eternal Creator. Wow.
Wow is right. Why do I have a feeling the courthouse is going to look like a Sci-fi/fantasy convention that day?

Wow is right. Why do I have a feeling the courthouse is going to look like a Sci-fi/fantasy convention that day?

But...those tend to be filled with people who at least can be interesting.

I always liked the visual of a judge getting absolutely apoplectic calling for order in the court as a disco ball descends from the courtroom ceiling, whilst showgirls gyrate with albino anacondas on their shoulders and midgets wrestle in green jello as Zsa Zsa Gabor performs oral sex on Henry Kissinger while the cop she slapped rips off his velcro uniform to reveal buttless chaps and nipple piercings.

I'm fairly certain I saw that somewhere.
I think that might have been a fantasy of yours... couldn't find a match on imdb.

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is the effect, if any on the marraiges of same sex couples performed prior to the adoption of Propostion 8?[/INDENT]
If they decide against civil rights, item (3) will be the next big public controversy, I think, because Schwarzenegger has already stated numerous times in the media that there is no way he will permit the annulment marriages already performed in California. His words were that it is "out of the question." We shall see, if put to it, what he does about it.

I think that might have been a fantasy of yours... couldn't find a match on imdb.

And one day, someone will fulfill my fantasy by turning it into a feature length Bollywood production about blacksploitation ninja zombies.

If they decide against civil rights, item (3) will be the next big public controversy, I think, because Schwarzenegger has already stated numerous times in the media that there is no way he will permit the annulment marriages already performed in California. His words were that it is "out of the question." We shall see, if put to it, what he does about it.

Arnold should go back in time and kill the guy(s) behind Prop 8 while they are young *nods*.

If they decide against civil rights, item (3) will be the next big public controversy, I think, because Schwarzenegger has already stated numerous times in the media that there is no way he will permit the annulment marriages already performed in California. His words were that it is "out of the question." We shall see, if put to it, what he does about it.

From my generalised study of private international law, it's extremely rare for jurisdictions to mess with marriages that were at one point permitted. There has to be a pretty serious driving policy reason to anull those relationships. I would hope that even if Prop 8 stood, that reluctance would factor in here.

It's like watching Mike Tyson and Kimbo Slice beat up Andy Dick.

*pops some popcorn*

Oh please, you could have O.J. Simpson beat up Andy Dick and everyone would cheer.

1 day in the cooler.

Shouldn't that be...

http://www.opticianonline.net/blogs/big-optometry-blog/Colonel%20Klink.jpg

"THAAATY DAYS IN THE COOLER!"

:D

Oh please, you could have O.J. Simpson beat up Andy Dick and everyone would cheer.

Yes, the fact that not a single person would feel an ounce of sympathy for Andy Dick was factored into my analogy. :)

ROTFLASTC

First, I note you fail to answer the question of why, if the Court has already decided the matter, the Court just issued an order (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/S168047_S168066_S168078-11-19-08_ORDER.pdf) demanding that the proponents of Prop 8 SHOW CAUSE as to why the opponents of Prop. 8 should not be granted the relief they request. I assume the reason you didn't answer this point was because there is no answer other than the Court has NOT already adjudicated the matter.

Second, courts refuse to hear issues prematurely all the time. See, e.g., ripeness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripeness). Refusal to decide the matter of the appropriateness of Prop. 8 prior to the vote is NOT THE SAME as deciding that Prop. 8 was appropriate. As Wiki correctly reported, the California Supreme Court has previously held that it doesn't generally won't review the constitutionality of a ballot proposition prior to an election. See, e.g., Costa v. Superior Court (2006) 37 Cal.4th 986, 1005 ("Past California decisions have observed that, as a general rule, 'it is usually more appropriate to review constitutional and other challenges to ballot propositions or initiative measures after an election rather than to disrupt the electoral process by preventing the exercise of the people's franchise, in the absence of some clear showing of invalidity.' (Brosnahan v. Eu (1982) 31 Cal.3d 1, 4 (Brosnahan I).)")

Third, your own logic lets you down. The Court didn't hear the case before. They refused to hear the petition without comment. Thus they didn't adjudicate the matter.

Fourth, bias of reporters aside, can you point to anything in the article you cited that says the Court actually ruled on the issue at hand?
The one good thing to come out of this argument, now I know why we don't settle these cases until after the election. I always wondered why they didn't settle these things before hand.

I find you in contempt of forum.
1 day in the cooler.

(in other words, warned for flaming, enjoy your one day vacation.)

**although not admonished, recognizes my tit-for-tat didn't help the level of discourse and will be more careful and courteous**

The one good thing to come out of this argument, now I know why we don't settle these cases until after the election. I always wondered why they didn't settle these things before hand.

In part, it's a pretty simple equation of not wanting to decide a case unnecessarily. If Prop. 8 had failed to win a majority, then all the legal questions about it would be moot. Only since it passed have those legal issues become ripe.

In part, it's a pretty simple equation of not wanting to decide a case unnecessarily. If Prop. 8 had failed to win a majority, then all the legal questions about it would be moot. Only since it passed have those legal issues become ripe.

Now I know...
http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e265/robluu/GI_Joe_Flint-Magnet.jpg
And, of course, knowing is half the battle...

I find you in contempt of forum.
1 day in the cooler.

(in other words, warned for flaming, enjoy your one day vacation.)

*sigh* I tried to warn them about this.

Fuck yeah California. I didn't expect any kind of challenge to pop up this quickly. Well, aside from internet petitions, but they don't really count.

And this is why laymen should not attempt to practice law.
I heard a crazy rumour that people had to study for years to be a lawyer. Madness, as long as I can google news reports and check things on wikipedia I can be a lawyer. Easy!
Mike Tyson and Kimbo Slice beat up Andy Dick.

I like this idea. Make it so, Mr. Goofballs.[/picard]

I heard a crazy rumour that people had to study for years to be a lawyer.

some people even say, that after those many years of study, they make lawyers take a big test to make sure they learned everything.

Utter BS I know, but could you imagine? Having to study for years and pass a giant test? To be a lawyer? I mean, can't you just be a lawyer by watching CSI a lot?

some people even say, that after those many years of study, they make lawyers take a big test to make sure they learned everything.

Utter BS I know, but could you imagine? Having to study for years and pass a giant test? To be a lawyer? I mean, can't you just be a lawyer by watching CSI a lot?

Rubbish. The lawyer curriculum is wide and varied, including JAG, Diagnosis Murder, suing random large corporations for oversized compensation payouts and all 4 Phoenix Wright games.

some people even say, that after those many years of study, they make lawyers take a big test to make sure they learned everything.

Utter BS I know, but could you imagine? Having to study for years and pass a giant test? To be a lawyer? I mean, can't you just be a lawyer by watching CSI a lot?

Let's talk about how much what's on the bar exam has to do with what you learned in law school. They often have so little to do with each other that you have to take specialized courses outside of law school just to pass the bar.

Or how much on the bar exam has to do with exactly what you do later as a lawyer. The most effective lawyers are the ones who never have to appear in court - and all of the effective strategies to keep you out of court are not taught in law school.

Rubbish. The lawyer curriculum is wide and varied, including JAG, Diagnosis Murder, suing random large corporations for oversized compensation payouts and all 4 Phoenix Wright games.

JAG and Diagnosis Murder are only for the military or medical specialties. Law and Order used to be included in the syllabus, however it became too long and tedius after a while, and results varied depending on who was playing the DA at the time: the old guy, the chick, the old guy who ran for president, or the guy who has been around for a while and did those insurance commercials.

some people even say, that after those many years of study, they make lawyers take a big test to make sure they learned everything.

Utter BS I know, but could you imagine? Having to study for years and pass a giant test? To be a lawyer? I mean, can't you just be a lawyer by watching CSI a lot?

Perry Mason, baby. Court room confessions and takin' it to Hamilton Burger for the win.

Let's talk about how much what's on the bar exam has to do with what you learned in law school. They often have so little to do with each other that you have to take specialized courses outside of law school just to pass the bar.

Or how much on the bar exam has to do with exactly what you do later as a lawyer. The most effective lawyers are the ones who never have to appear in court - and all of the effective strategies to keep you out of court are not taught in law school.

oh, right, of course, I forgot how much you knew about law when you spent all that time here lying and pretending to be a lawyer.

Perry Mason, baby. Court room confessions and takin' it to Hamilton Burger for the win.

there was an episode of Perry Mason where a guy was charged with murdering some woman, but no body had been found. Mason, in his brilliance, went "she was never murdered, in fact, she's going to walk through the door RIGHT NOW!" and pointed to the back of the courtroom door, and the entire jury turned to see.

Of course, nobody walked through, and Mason then proceeded to tell them that since they turned to look and see if she would, some part of them believed she COULD be alive, and there was their reasonable doubt.

I was 12 when I saw that episode and even then I knew something was deeply, deeply wrong with that.

oh, right, of course, I forgot how much you knew about law when you spent all that time here lying and pretending to be a lawyer.
yeah i remember those days

not that he passed as a lawyer but that only made it more amusing.

oh, right, of course, I forgot how much you knew about law when you spent all that time here lying and pretending to be a lawyer.

Answer the question. You know that one thing hardly has anything to do with the other.

Answer the question.

1) you haven't asked one.

2) I'm not your monkey, and I don't take orders from you.

Now, if you have anything to add to the topic at hand, please do so. We've been derailed enough.

Perry Mason, baby. Court room confessions and takin' it to Hamilton Burger for the win.

A little Matlock can broaden one's legal repertoire. *nod*

A little Matlock can broaden one's legal repertoire. *nod*
i learned all i know about the law from "boston legal"

ohhhh maybe thats why i can't pass the bar...

i learned all i know about the law from "boston legal"

ohhhh maybe thats why i can't pass the bar...

Bar shmar. Testing is just one more form of control. *nod*

*puts down book:*

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/neurosurgery.png

*and heads toward the operating room*

Don't make the mistake of thinking they're stupid. That's what doomed the no on 8 campaign in the first place.

I thought it was the mistake of thinking people weren't stupid that doomed it.

i learned all i know about the law from "boston legal"

ohhhh maybe thats why i can't pass the bar...

Nonsense! Real lawyers totally spend all their time shooting people and having sex with absurdly pretty people, and win every case based not on silly things like "precedent" or "facts" or "the actual law," but simply on their ability to make really awesome speeches! Isn't that right, TCT/NA/Gravlen/Sin? :tongue:

Bar shmar. Testing is just one more form of control. *nod*

*puts down book:*

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/neurosurgery.png

*and heads toward the operating room*

There's actually a segment in "The Worst Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Work" that gives you tips on how to pass an interview for a position as a surgeon, if you're not qualified.

Don't make the mistake of thinking they're stupid. That's what doomed the no on 8 campaign in the first place.
dem's response reminded me that i didnt respond to this...

you didnt read their brief did you?

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/s168047-letter-denial-heaven.pdf

PDF FILE WARNING


gay and lesbian marriage and abortion are serious attempts to destroy the almighty eternal creators ongoing creation of human life on earth! if they do not change their sexual conduct and pay in full for damages caused while they are on earth, they surely must pay after their earthly lives!

after a night full of dreams, before dawn of novermber 11, 2008, before i woke up in the morning, the almighty eternal creator ordered me, saying, "you explain to them the consequences that follow each and all actions. once they understand, they will listen!"


he goes on to mention the invasion of iraq, elliot spitzer's adventures with a call girl, bill clinton lying about a blow job, the illnesses of rehnquist and oconnor being the result of their rulings,and other mistakes of government.


its a pretty incoherent defense of prop 8

There's actually a segment in "The Worst Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Work" that gives you tips on how to pass an interview for a position as a surgeon, if you're not qualified.

That sounds like a good thing to publish. :p

Nonsense! Real lawyers totally spend all their time shooting people and having sex with absurdly pretty people, and win every case based not on silly things like "precedent" or "facts" or "the actual law," but simply on their ability to make really awesome speeches! Isn't that right, TCT/NA/Gravlen/Sin? :tongue:
im sure i could give a great rant on whatever constitutional issue bugs david kelly the most but, alas, it is no help in passing the bar exam.




(not that im ever going to take a bar exam)

dem's response reminded me that i didnt respond to this...

you didnt read their brief did you?

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/s168047-letter-denial-heaven.pdf

PDF FILE WARNING




he goes on to mention the invasion of iraq, elliot spitzer's adventures with a call girl, bill clinton lying about a blow job, the illnesses of rehnquist and oconnor being the result of their rulings,and other mistakes of government.


its a pretty incoherent defense of prop 8

Oddly enough, God spoke to me and told me that people like him are actually receiving messages from Loki. Or course, I can't rule out the possibility that Loki told me that. He's a cunning bastard! :p

Oddly enough, God spoke to me and told me that people like him are actually receiving messages from Loki. Or course, I can't rule out the possibility that Loki told me that. He's a cunning bastard! :p
lol

or loki could have been talking to both of you. he's cunning AND he gets around.

Nonsense! Real lawyers totally spend all their time shooting people and having sex with absurdly pretty people, and win every case based not on silly things like "precedent" or "facts" or "the actual law," but simply on their ability to make really awesome speeches! Isn't that right, TCT/NA/Gravlen/Sin? :tongue:

I think theyre the exception:p

In our country, we do not allow the representatives of any religion to legitimize any binding legal contracts such as civil-unions or other forms of general business partnerships. While anyone may celebrate their wedding in any way they like, all "married" couples (regardless of sexuality) have exactly the same legal status which is achieved through exactly the same bureaucratic process. We find this to nicely balance freedom of religious expression with civil rights. Why would a system like this not work in California?

In our country, we do not allow the representatives of any religion to legitimize any binding legal contracts such as civil-unions or other forms of general business partnerships. While anyone may celebrate their wedding in any way they like, all "married" couples (regardless of sexuality) have exactly the same legal status which is achieved through exactly the same bureaucratic process. We find this to nicely balance freedom of religious expression with civil rights. Why would a system like this not work in California?That is, in fact, the system in the United States, except for a slight muddying of the waters because the wedding celebrant (priest, rabbi, minister, ship-captain, etc.) is allowed to sign the marriage license as a witness. The actual bureaucratic process of obtaining the legal marriage license is the same, regardless of whether you choose to have a religious wedding ceremony or not. The only issue is whether same-sex couples should be forbidden from going through the legal bureaucratic registration, on grounds that a lot of churches won't give us a religious wedding ceremony.

That is, in fact, the system in the United States, except for a slight muddying of the waters because the wedding celebrant (priest, rabbi, minister, ship-captain, etc.) is allowed to sign the marriage license as a witness. The actual bureaucratic process of obtaining the legal marriage license is the same, regardless of whether you choose to have a religious wedding ceremony or not. The only issue is whether same-sex couples should be forbidden from going through the legal bureaucratic registration, on grounds that a lot of churches won't give us a religious wedding ceremony.

And because you're denying the Almighty Eternal Creator and following the Devil!

sorry, was channeling crazy chick who thinks she's God.

dem's response reminded me that i didnt respond to this...

you didnt read their brief did you?

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/s168047-letter-denial-heaven.pdf

PDF FILE WARNING




he goes on to mention the invasion of iraq, elliot spitzer's adventures with a call girl, bill clinton lying about a blow job, the illnesses of rehnquist and oconnor being the result of their rulings,and other mistakes of government.


its a pretty incoherent defense of prop 8
I'll bet the original final draft was handwritten on legal paper, on both sides, edge to edge with no margins. Ah, yes, I've seen documents like that. :eek2:

he goes on to mention the invasion of iraq, elliot spitzer's adventures with a call girl, bill clinton lying about a blow job, the illnesses of rehnquist and oconnor being the result of their rulings,and other mistakes of government.

ah yes, because what other than god's eternal wrath could cause a man to die at the oh so young age of 80?

I thought it was the mistake of thinking people weren't stupid that doomed it.

Yes indeed. I know this was true for many of my friends. They honestly believed it had 'no chance of winning' because it was so fringe-lunatic and stupid. Fortunately I never underestimate the power of stupid.

dem's response reminded me that i didnt respond to this...

you didnt read their brief did you?

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/s168047-letter-denial-heaven.pdf

PDF FILE WARNING




he goes on to mention the invasion of iraq, elliot spitzer's adventures with a call girl, bill clinton lying about a blow job, the illnesses of rehnquist and oconnor being the result of their rulings,and other mistakes of government.


its a pretty incoherent defense of prop 8

The funniest part is when she claims that everything is in heaven before it gets to Earth, therefore surely gays must have been in heaven first?

That is, in fact, the system in the United States, except for a slight muddying of the waters because the wedding celebrant (priest, rabbi, minister, ship-captain, etc.) is allowed to sign the marriage license as a witness. The actual bureaucratic process of obtaining the legal marriage license is the same, regardless of whether you choose to have a religious wedding ceremony or not. The only issue is whether same-sex couples should be forbidden from going through the legal bureaucratic registration, on grounds that a lot of churches won't give us a religious wedding ceremony.

If indeed citizens are denied legal rights because of some church's refusal to include them in their activities, it seems that churches have far more power than is healthy for democratic society. What about the churches who celebrate gay marriages? Why can they not make policy?

The funniest part is when she claims that everything is in heaven before it gets to Earth, therefore surely gays must have been in heaven first?
I guess they got all queered up on the way down. Passed through Satan's gay baffle.

Something like that.

*gives up trying to figure out crazy person's crazy talk*

If indeed citizens are denied legal rights because of some church's refusal to include them in their activities, it seems that churches have far more power than is healthy for democratic society. What about the churches who celebrate gay marriages? Why can they not make policy?

marriage can be both a legal action, and a religious one. Churches are utterly and totally free to perform gay weddings, or refuse to perform gay weddings, that is entirely their right.

However, governments, state and federal, LEGALLY define marriage as a man and a woman (except for two states now that do not have such a restriction), so even a same sex marriage performed in a church would not be, legally, a marriage

marriage can be both a legal action, and a religious one. Churches are utterly and totally free to perform gay weddings, or refuse to perform gay weddings, that is entirely their right.

However, governments, state and federal, LEGALLY define marriage as a man and a woman (except for two states now that do not have such a restriction), so even a same sex marriage performed in a church would not be, legally, a marriage

What, in California, are the differences in legal rights between those who are "married" and those who have a civil union?

It's like watching Mike Tyson and Kimbo Slice beat up Andy Dick.

*pops some popcorn*

Such a heartwarming image.

Perry Mason, baby. Court room confessions and takin' it to Hamilton Burger for the win.

Night Court, FTW.

What, in California, are the differences in legal rights between those who are "married" and those who have a civil union?
There is no such thing as a "civil union" in California. They do have a separate institution called a "domestic partnership", reserved for people who cannot be "married" (particularly same-sex couples). Originally this was a purely cosmetic way of registering your mutual commitment, which some employers might recognize and grant benefits based upon, but in 2005 after Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill allowing same-sex marriage, the legislature enacted that domestic partners should have all of the exact same rights as a "married" couple. The Religious Right challenged this, on grounds that if California does not recognize any same-sex "marriage" it cannot recognize something that is identical to "marriage" except for the name; that became moot when the California Supreme Court struck down all barriers against same-sex marriage last summer, but the issue is alive again.

If indeed citizens are denied legal rights because of some church's refusal to include them in their activities, it seems that churches have far more power than is healthy for democratic society.
Amen!
What about the churches who celebrate gay marriages? Why can they not make policy?
Because they don't have nearly as much money as the Mormon and Catholic churches.

There is no such thing as a "civil union" in California. They do have a separate institution called a "domestic partnership", reserved for people who cannot be "married" (particularly same-sex couples). Originally this was a purely cosmetic way of registering your mutual commitment, which some employers might recognize and grant benefits based upon, but in 2005 after Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill allowing same-sex marriage, the legislature enacted that domestic partners should have all of the exact same rights as a "married" couple. The Religious Right challenged this, on grounds that if California does not recognize any same-sex "marriage" it cannot recognize something that is identical to "marriage" except for the name; that became moot when the California Supreme Court struck down all barriers against same-sex marriage last summer, but the issue is alive again.
Which pretty much proves that, when the religious right say they do not oppose legal rights for gays, they are lying. If they were telling the truth, they would have supported the extension of full rights to "domestic partnerships" while keeping the word "marriage" for their own purposes. However, they specifically went out of their way to deny a set of rights to gays, even though, as originally packaged, they had nothing to do with marriage.

This is why I take the position that the religious right are a bunch of lying bigots who can suck it.

There is no such thing as a "civil union" in California. They do have a separate institution called a "domestic partnership", reserved for people who cannot be "married" (particularly same-sex couples). Originally this was a purely cosmetic way of registering your mutual commitment, which some employers might recognize and grant benefits based upon, but in 2005 after Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill allowing same-sex marriage, the legislature enacted that domestic partners should have all of the exact same rights as a "married" couple. The Religious Right challenged this, on grounds that if California does not recognize any same-sex "marriage" it cannot recognize something that is identical to "marriage" except for the name; that became moot when the California Supreme Court struck down all barriers against same-sex marriage last summer, but the issue is alive again.

Thank you for the information. It is our hope that Reason will carry the day. You have our solidarity in your struggle for an equal society.

In our country, we do not allow the representatives of any religion to legitimize any binding legal contracts such as civil-unions or other forms of general business partnerships. While anyone may celebrate their wedding in any way they like, all "married" couples (regardless of sexuality) have exactly the same legal status which is achieved through exactly the same bureaucratic process. We find this to nicely balance freedom of religious expression with civil rights. Why would a system like this not work in California?

What country is this, by the way? Obviously not a Spanish speaking one, with such a simple grammatical error as is found in your name.

Thank you for the information. It is our hope that Reason will carry the day. You have our solidarity in your struggle for an equal society.
Thank you.