Prop 8 Ruling Due Today

< Monday Night TV and Open Thread | Obama Taps Sotomayor For SCOTUS >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I predict (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Matt v on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:51:52 AM EST
    that Liberals will be delighted, Conservatives horrified. Or, is it the other way around?

     Whatever happened to the 'one human, one life' rule?  

    Everyone seems to want to live two: theirs... and their neighbor's.

    The California Supremes have an opportunity (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue May 26, 2009 at 12:14:53 AM EST
    two preserve the civil rights of Californians and reign in the petition/initiative process in one decision. I hope they will be that bold, but I do not expect they will be.

    I suspect they will bend to mob rule.

    But they were bold before right? (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by nycstray on Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:09:09 AM EST
    I'm so hoping they don't bend to mob rule.

    It's so "interesting" to see this going on as I was born there. We were always those "looney liberals" from CA. Now I'm living in NY with the "bleeding heart liberals", yet neither state is really all that liberal (considering what we're called). Yes, both states can be liberal, but when you get down to the nitty gritty . . . equal rights across the board shouldn't be an issue. It should be a done deal.


    I agree with you to a degree :) (none / 0) (#5)
    by nycstray on Tue May 26, 2009 at 03:53:33 AM EST
    I was more making a statement on the labeling of the states and the reality. We were considered "looney left" but reality was different, just like in NY.

    I grew up in Orange County, next, outside of Bakersfield by about 30 miles, and then the Bay Area suburbs (then I turned 18 and scooted off to SF). When I move back in the fall, I'll be in a red district, but with enough blues I shouldn't get into too much trouble. (lol!~)

    I just find it interesting that we are having this issue in a blue state. A state that is labeled as so liberal, as is NY. Both states do hop on, support and pass some "nice" bills in regards of the people, but they seem awfully small when you compare it to equal rights for everyone.

    I do hope you are right about the ten years, but I would prefer today :)


    I think they will come to ... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:21:36 AM EST
    the completely unsatisfying decision to uphold the ban, but continue to recognize the marriages conducted prior to the ban.

    And they will deftly argue that such a decision makes sense.  When, of course, it doesn't.

    Sorry to barge in with an OT comment, (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anne on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:29:15 AM EST
    but Obama is set to announce his Supreme Court nominee at approximately 10:15 am EDT this morning.

    And Morning Joe (none / 0) (#9)
    by standingup on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:32:27 AM EST
    is now saying the AP is reporting he has chosen Sonia Sotomayor.

    OT Breaking News Obama Picks Sontomayor (none / 0) (#10)
    by Saul on Tue May 26, 2009 at 07:58:58 AM EST

    Is it a coincidence that (none / 0) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 26, 2009 at 08:09:40 AM EST
    the Supreme Court nominee is announced at about the same time the California Supreme Court decision is presented?  A dilution maybe?

    Yes, coincidence (none / 0) (#12)
    by Spamlet on Tue May 26, 2009 at 09:27:28 AM EST
    My Preditction (none / 0) (#13)
    by blueaura on Tue May 26, 2009 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    My prediction--possibly containing some wishful thinking--is that they will overturn the ban. The idea of allowing a simple majority of voters to take away rights from a minority is preposterous and sets a terribly dangerous precedent.

    As it turns out... (none / 0) (#15)
    by blueaura on Tue May 26, 2009 at 01:20:27 PM EST
    it was just wishful thinking.

    I guess I shouldn't have said "sets...precedent". The California constitution is so f*cked up, that foolish precedent was indeed set before Prop 8.