What the 5-4 Prop 8 decision means (It’s worse than you think)

Readability

What the 5-4 Prop 8 decision means (It's worse than you think)

As a per­son who opposes Gay Mar­riage and has pub­licly called it sim­ply nar­cis­sism I am of course dis­pleased with the Supreme Court’s rul­ings today but even worse that the result of the final Prop 8 case is the over­turn­ing of that ref­er­en­dum based on stand­ing.

Let’s wind back the tape. In Cal­i­for­nia gay mar­riage was imposed by fiat. Dis­sent­ing cit­i­zens, opposed by the entrenched Demo­c­rat Machine at every turn, went through the com­pli­cated expen­sive and time-​consuming process to mount a ref­er­en­dum to reverse them and against all odds, won.

Oppo­nents imme­di­ately went to court where a sym­pa­thetic judge ruled against the ref­er­en­dum. The State’s Demo­c­rat machine refused to defend a law passed over their wishes on appeal so the peo­ple took on the appeal themselves.

Now the Supreme Court has decided they don’t have the right to do so.

In a one party state the impli­ca­tions are stag­ger­ing!

If a state gov­ern­ment, over­whelm­ingly con­trolled by a sin­gle party wants to push unpop­u­lar laws for the ben­e­fit of any group the people’s abil­ity to stop them by ref­er­en­dum is stymied.

Any sort of ref­er­en­dum is very hard. It requires a vast amount of peo­ple will­ing to invest mil­lions of dol­lars and months or maybe even years of time while being will­ing to stand up to oppo­nents who will vil­ify you. In a one party state it’s even harder since the peo­ple who oppose you con­trol all levers of gov­ern­ment, mak­ing it easy to pun­ish your friends and reward your foes.

Why go through all that time and effort and expense when even if you win, all the party machine needs is a sin­gle sym­pa­thetic lower court judge to rule in their and violà you’re foiled with­out stand­ing to appeal.

Fans of Gay Mar­riage might be cheer­ing today, but not as loud as fans of one party auto­cratic government.

Update: Legal Insur­rec­tion nails it

The death of the bal­lot ini­tia­tive move­ment as Court gives de facto veto power to gov­ern­ment offi­cials who want to lose a case.

Exactly.

Update 2: Jus­tice Kennedy

There is much irony in the Court’s approach to jus­ti­cia­bil­ity in this case. A prime pur­pose of jus­ti­cia­bil­ity is to ensure vig­or­ous advo­cacy, yet the Court insists upon lit­i­ga­tion con­ducted by state offi­cials whose pref­er­ence ist o lose the case….

In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the ini­tia­tive process. And it is this. The essence of democ­racy is that the right to make law rests in the peo­ple and flows to the gov­ern­ment, not the other way around. Free­dom resides first in the peo­ple with­out need of a grant from government.

As a person who opposes Gay Marriage and has publicly called it simply narcissism I am of course displeased with the Supreme Court’s rulings today but even worse that the result of the final Prop 8 case is the overturning of that referendum based on standing.

Let’s wind back the tape.  In California gay marriage was imposed by fiat.  Dissenting citizens,  opposed by the entrenched Democrat Machine at every turn, went through the complicated expensive and time-consuming process to mount a referendum to reverse them and against all odds, won.

Opponents immediately went to court where a sympathetic judge ruled against the referendum.  The State’s Democrat machine refused to defend a law passed over their wishes on appeal so the people took on the appeal themselves.

Now the Supreme Court has decided they don’t have the right to do so.

In a one party state the implications are staggering!

If a state government, overwhelmingly controlled by a single party wants to push unpopular laws for the benefit of any group the people’s ability to stop them by referendum is stymied.

Any sort of referendum is very hard.  It requires a vast amount of people willing to invest millions of dollars and months or maybe even years of time while being willing to stand up to opponents who will vilify you.  In a one party state it’s even harder since the people who oppose you control all levers of government, making it easy to punish your friends and reward your foes.

Why go through all that time and effort and expense when even if you win, all the party machine needs is a single sympathetic lower court judge to rule in their and violà  you’re foiled without standing to appeal.

Fans of Gay Marriage might be cheering today, but not as loud as fans of one party autocratic  government.

Update:  Legal Insurrection nails it

The death of the ballot initiative movement as Court gives de facto veto power to government officials who want to lose a case.

Exactly.

Update 2:  Justice Kennedy

There is much irony in the Court’s approach to justiciability in this case. A prime purpose of justiciability is to ensure vigorous advocacy, yet the Court insists upon litigation conducted by state officials whose preference ist o lose the case….

In the end, what the Court fails to grasp or accept is the basic premise of the initiative process. And it is this. The essence of democracy is that the right to make law rests in the people and flows to the government, not the other way around. Freedom resides first in the people without need of a grant from government.