Corrupt 9Th Circuit Overturns Prop 8

[BCSpace]

Breaking news. No details yet. But what else would one expect from the 9th?

Details coming now:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/02/07/150967/

[Duncan]

Breaking news. No details yet. But what else would one expect from the 9th?

so there is gay marriage allowed now in California? admitedly I haven't been following the whole prop 8 saga...

[BCSpace]

Will be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Edit: Looks like it will go before the full Ninth (still corrupt so I have no positive expectation) and then the Supreme.

[frankenstein]

Yep, what else should anyone expect.I wonder if the lds judge was the one judge who disagreed with the other two....if true, what else could one expect from a Mormon judge whose allegiance is first to a church and all other things are second. Pretty dumb statement to make, just a dumb as calling a court corrupt because the judges did not support ones own agenda.

CFR that the 9th judges did not follow the law but rather were corrupt in reaching their conclusion. Prior over turns does not indicate corruption, not support your personal position on the measure also does not equal corruption. Prop 8 had no legitimate purpose given that there are 180000 legal same sex marriages in California and given that calfornia provides a separate but equal attitude with prop 8. C

[sjdawg]

Will be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Edit: Looks like it will go before the full Ninth (still corrupt so I have no positive expectation) and then the Supreme.

Is it always corrupt or just when you disagree with them?

[sjdawg]

Will be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Edit: Looks like it will go before the full Ninth (still corrupt so I have no positive expectation) and then the Supreme.

What is the basis for the corruption allegation? Those are pretty strong words. What makes this decision corrupt and what has made other decisions in the past corrupt? I disagree with many decisions that judges make but I don't know that I have ever come across a judge that I consider to be corrupt.

1. guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked: a corrupt judge.

2. debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil: a corrupt society.

3. made inferior by errors or alterations, as a text.

4. infected; tainted.

5. decayed; putrid.

[frankenstein]

Is it always corrupt or just when you disagree with them?

Corruption or liberal activism are the only two option for a court opinion that does not agree with ones personal agenda.

[Daniel2]

The complete ruling is here:

http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2012-02-07-Decision-on-Merits.pdf

I'd be really curious to hear which parts indicate the "corruption" of the court that BCSpace alledges.

Daniel2

[BCSpace]

All of the above. Any decision which is against the doctrines of Christ's (LDS) Church is corruption.

[Daniel2]

Thanks for clarifying, BC, that when you say "corrupt," what you simply mean is "anything contrary to your religious beliefs."

Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

I've disagreed with plenty of Court dicisions. But not because of corruption.

[Libs]

If the USSC rules against Prop 8 (which is a good possibility), are you going to call them "corrupt", as well?

[sjdawg]

All of the above. Any decision which is against the doctrines of Christ's (LDS) Church is corruption.

Seriously? That is the basis for the corruption charge? I thought you may have actually had a legal basis for making such an allegation. I'm not sure how I feel about the courts decision (leaning towards optimistic, but still a little uncertain) but by no means do I think the court was corrupted.

[The Nehor]

All of the above. Any decision which is against the doctrines of Christ's (LDS) Church is corruption.

Then you should probably avoid using the word corruption. That word has a specific meaning when applied to judges. Your definition is completely different.

[Pahoran]

All of the above. Any decision which is against the doctrines of Christ's (LDS) Church is corruption.

BC,

The decision may or may not be wrong in law.

The decision may be (and I would argue is) wrong as a matter of morality.

But to accuse the court of corruption on no other ground that it has reached a morally wrong decision is seriously overreaching.

Courts are not there to do what is right; they are there to do what is legal.

You don't go to court to get justice; you go there to get judgement. In that respect, both sides got what they asked for.

And since neither you nor I nor any other supporter of marriage integrity has any evidence that the judges did anything other than weigh the facts before them in the light of the law as they understood it, the charge of corruption is uncharitable and unsupportable.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

very good post Pahoran.

[Jaybear]

Per the judge:

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status of human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws of this sort.""

In short, BCSpace's issue is not with the court, but with the Constitution.

[Jeff K.]

No, it is with the interpretation of the Constitution.

[Pahoran]

No, it is with the interpretation of the Constitution.

Evidently Jaybear, who describes himself as a lawyer, can't tell the difference between the Constitution and an interpretation thereof provided by two judges.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Per the judge:

"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status of human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for "laws of this sort.""

In short, BCSpace's issue is not with the court, but with the Constitution.

Lol, I have no doubt that the 9th circus court decision will be over turned.

Couldn't see this one coming. What I find funny is that the voice of the people spoke and they did not want gay marriage. Why even have an election if an activist court can just over turn it?

For extra credit, on what grounds did prop 8 violate the constitutions? That is the real question.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Evidently Jaybear, who describes himself as a lawyer, can't tell the difference between the Constitution and an interpretation thereof provided by two judges.

Regards,

Pahoran

Oh boy. Good call.

[Zeta-Flux]

As usual, I found Ed Whelan's thoughts match my own quite well: Ed Whelan's initial thoughts

After having read most of the majority opinion, and the separate opinion of Judge Smith, my opinion is that: (1) both opinions are much better than Walkers (and both basically ignore his findings), (2) I think the majority opinion ignores the rational reason of Prop. 8 being that the people of California disagreed with their Supreme Court about the meaning of their constitution. (However, I don't think that the proponents raised that specific point.)

[Jaybear]

Oh boy. Good call.

My, my, several of you think that:the Constitution actually allows for the passage of laws which serve " no purpose, and [have] no effect, other than to lessen the status of human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.."

At least Judge Smith had the good sense not to disagree with the broad constitutional statement, what you call an "interpretation", but to try to articulate a secular purpose beyond as BCSPace calls for .... advancing LDS Doctrine.

[Mark Beesley]

Breaking news. No details yet. But what else would one expect from the 9th?

Details coming now:

http://sanfrancisco....2/02/07/150967/

Your opening post was posted within minutes of the announcement of the 9th Circuit's decision. The opinion is 128 pages long. So, you came to the conclusion that the 9th Circuit is corrupt without reading the opinion, and without any personal knowledge of who on the panel voted to overturn Prop 8 and who voted to uphold it.

I haven't had time yet to read the opinion either, but I suspect (knowing Judge Reinhard), that it is a fairly solid legal decision (though the assertion that marriage somehow makes a relationship dignified is almost laughable in the 21st Century <tongue-in-cheek>)..

I will be most interested to read Judge Smith's dissent, because what he wrote will likely be the basis on which the decision will ultimately have to be reversed, if it is to be reversed.

[Brade]

BC,

The decision may or may not be wrong in law.

The decision may be (and I would argue is) wrong as a matter of morality.

But to accuse the court of corruption on no other ground that it has reached a morally wrong decision is seriously overreaching.

Courts are not there to do what is right; they are there to do what is legal.

You don't go to court to get justice; you go there to get judgement. In that respect, both sides got what they asked for.

And since neither you nor I nor any other supporter of marriage integrity has any evidence that the judges did anything other than weigh the facts before them in the light of the law as they understood it, the charge of corruption is uncharitable and unsupportable.

Regards,

Pahoran