Category Archives: Judicial

(Not) Having a Gay Old Time

Republished with permission from Just Politics?

Advocates of gay marriage were none-to-pleased by democracy in action. They sought redress from the courts (as Liberals often do) when the people don’t vote the way they should. The court did not actually take a stand on gay marriage but rather on the ability of the people to amend California’s constitution through propositions. The court did uphold the gay marriages that took place when they were legal, before California voters overturned the legislature.

I do feel sorry for the gays who seek marriage but can’t say as though I’m upset that a proposition that recieved a majority of the votes was upheld. In typical Liberal fashion, however, it was painted as a tyranny by the majority. Tough. I have to live with the many propositions that are passed in California with which I disagree and, because I live in San Francisco, have to deal with many of their stupid attempts to limit my freedoms such as the overturned handgun ban that recently cost San Francisco $800,000.00.

I’m not sure if gays were more upset that they could not wed or that a majority of voters didn’t want them to legally marry. After all, even if you do live in California, not everybody is okay with gay marriage.

Activists will put a proposition of their own on the ballot next time around seeking to overturn the last one. Maybe they will succeed, maybe they won’t. While I do empathize with their plight I am pleased that the law was upheld. And, had gay marriage been approved by the voters and had people sued to overturn that I would still have been in favor of the law being upheld.
There are some haters to be sure.


Unfortunately, many who are against gay marriage are none-to-nice about it. While I understand their religious beliefs might preclude them from advocating same sex marriage, it does not sit well with me that some have chosen to express their feelings in the form of hatred and anger.

We will see whether Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, if she is confirmed, would uphold the law in general or whether she would bring her “unique life experiences” or whatever that garbage means to bear in her decisions.

As I’m sure time will show, the media will not portray this as the upholding of the law but, rather, some soft and squishy ideas about freedom and human rights. Those are issues, but not the central ones.

One thing is for sure today and that is that even in a Liberal state such as California not every idea goes down smoothly.

Sonia Sotomayor Nominated to US Supreme Court.

One woman has made the U.S. Hispanic population proud today. Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated as a Justice in the U.S. Supreme Court by President Obama.

Sotomayor has been often mentioned as a candidate for the Supreme Court position, replacing the retiring Justice David Souter. Sotomayor is not likely to change the ideological balance of the bench but she will add a great deal of diversity. The Supreme Court will consist of two women, with Sotomayor being only the third woman to sit on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court members will include eight whites and one african american.

Sotomayor’s journey to the Supreme Court is also certain to add to the diversity she brings to the bench. Sotomayor was the daughter of working class parents in the Bronx Her father, who didnt speak english and only had a third grade education, died when she was nine. Her mother then worked six days a week to support them. Sotomayor worked hard throughout school and on a scholarship to Princeton and the went on to Yale to study Law. She became a prosecutor in New York, then a corporate litigator, before being seated to a federal trial court by the first President Bush. Six years later, President Clinton elevated her to a New York-based appeals court. Her rise through adversity would seem to be one that rivals Obama’s on rise to power.

While Sotomayors time in the judiciary has mostly concerned routine matters it has not been without controversy. The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), among other groups, called her an “activist” judge. One of her more controversial votes as a judge was one endorsing a Connecticut city’s decision to discard the results of a firefighter promotion test because blacks and Hispanics scored disproportionately lower than whites. The case is now before the Supreme Court.

Sotomayor will not be shy about countering such criticism. She said she decides cases based on the law, without an agenda in mind. “I firmly believe in the rule of law,” she said.
While Democratic members of the Senate back her nomination republican members say they will need some time to review her 17 year record.