damned if you do, damned if you don't... (about prop 8)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

There you go, another personal slam. You just can't win, can you, without mocking some personal attribute of mine?

Being lawyer is so antithetical to your actions re Prop. 8, counselor. Deal with it.

In reality, "civil rights" are those defined by the people. They can be granted; they can be taken away.

And under the CA state constitution, gay couples had the fundamental right to marry. What makes Prop. 8 so abhorrent is that it was specifically tailored to take this right from gays.

There is nothing unconstitutional about "taking them away" unless it is somehow in conflict with the constitution.

Equal protection and Section 7(b) of Article 1 of the Declaration of Rights say otherwise, counselor.

It is a continuing canard of yours to say that somehow it is unlawful to take away somebody's rights.

Then why bother to have equal protection? You cavalier attitude about such a basis tenet of American jurisprudence is embarrassing, counselor.

If Prop 8 fails, it will not be on your favored ground. If it fails it will fail on the the amendment vs. revision issue, or the fact that Prop 8 did not overrule Marriage Cases' holdings about suspect classes and equal protection. But not on the nutty doctrine that one can't pass an amendment to take away somebody's rights?

You can so amend, but it is wrong, period, to let religious dogma and superstition lead to such a result, which is what Mormon involvement in Prop. 8 was all about. And the fact you can't grasp the concept, counselor, reflects your lack of legal understanding.

Where was the hew and cry when Californians reimposed the death penalty? People v. Frierson, 25 Cal. 3d 142 (1979), the California Supreme Court, upheld California's death penalty initiative when it was argued that one cannot use the initiative process to strip away rights.

After it was held by a court that California's school system was de facto segregation, and a court imposed forced busing, an initiative changed the constitution to prohibit forced busing. Crawford v. Board of Education, 113 Cal. App. 3d 633 (1980), affirmed 458 U.S. 527 (1982) upheld the initiative against the claim that one can't take away the rights of minorities.

And Prop 187 which took away the civil rights of illegal immigrants? That was not overturned on the basis that rights were taken away once possessed.

Did any of these cases involve an equal protection analysis? If so, how did the court so analyze, counselor? You, sir, are an embarrassment to the legal profession.

[_rcrocket]

Did any of these cases involve an equal protection analysis? If so, how did the court so analyze, counselor? You, sir, are an embarrassment to the legal profession.

They all did.

Well, I don't claim perfection; that is for sure. I will just continue to note that you have to punctuate your posts with direct personal slams.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Well, I don't claim perfection; that is for sure. I will just continue to note that you have to punctuate your posts with direct personal slams.

Forgive me. But it seems to me that lawyers should be the very first to stand up against any law or amendment where the sole purpose is to strip away a fundamental constitutional right (recognized under equal protection) from a targeted segment of society. How can you, in good faith, continue to practice law after taking the opposite position?

[_rcrocket]

Well, I don't claim perfection; that is for sure. I will just continue to note that you have to punctuate your posts with direct personal slams.

Forgive me. But it seems to me that lawyers should be the very first to stand up against any law or amendment where the sole purpose is to strip away a fundamental constitutional right (recognized under equal protection) from a targeted segment of society. How can you, in good faith, continue to practice law after taking the opposite position?

Because rights come and they go. Often, when it comes to rights, some people win and some people lose. The death penalty comes and it goes. The right to take somebody's private party for a public venture comes and it goes. Busing comes and it goes (first, parents could keep their kids in white neighborhoods, then they couldn't, then they could; who lost? who won?). Taxes come and they go. The rights of resident illegal immigrants come and they go. The rights of people to immigrate come and they go. The rights of people to serve as gays in the military come and go. The right to vote comes and it goes (women in Utah could vote; Congress took it away; Congress restored it; felons can vote in some states, not in others). The right to hold office comes and it goes (I think term limits are unconstitutional, but I've been proven wrong by the courts). Civil rights are what the people say they are in the constitution as thereafter interpreted by the courts.

When I take an oath as a lawyer I do not swear to be a civil libertarian or to even stake out some sort of moral ground. My status as a lawyer has nothing to do with my posts on this board, and to continue to mock me for being a lawyer is just a concession on your part that you have nothing else.

Why don't you report me to the State Bar as did GoodK? He went one step further than you have done with your argument. But, really, your argument about how poor a lawyer I am is just going down that same irrelevant railroad track.

[_GoodK]

I reported no one to the state Bar.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Forgive me. But it seems to me that lawyers should be the very first to stand up against any law or amendment where the sole purpose is to strip away a fundamental constitutional right (recognized under equal protection) from a targeted segment of society. How can you, in good faith, continue to practice law after taking the opposite position?

Because rights come and they go.

My, how cavalier of you. Thanks for making my point.

Often, when it comes to rights, some people win and some people lose.

Equal protection exists to prevent this very thing. Did you ever study constitutional law?

The death penalty comes and it goes.

Not an equal protection issue.

The right to take somebody's private party for a public venture comes and it goes.

Not an equal protection issue.

Busing comes and it goes (first, parents could keep their kids in white neighborhoods, then they couldn't, then they could; who lost? who won?). Taxes come and they go.

Not equal protection.

The rights of resident illegal immigrants come and they go. The rights of people to immigrate come and they go.

Perhaps this has something to do with equal protection, but I would bet it had more to do with rights of citizens and non-citizens.

The rights of people to serve as gays in the military come and go.

One area I agree our country has screwed up.

The right to vote comes and it goes (women in Utah could vote; Congress took it away; Congress restored it; felons can vote in some states, not in others).

But fortunately equal protection took care of that, as it will with gay marriage.

The right to hold office comes and it goes (I think term limits are unconstitutional, but I've been proven wrong by the courts).

Not equal protection.

Civil rights are what the people say they are in the constitution as thereafter interpreted by the courts.

That's where equal protection comes in, dear counselor.

When I take an oath as a lawyer I do not swear to be a civil libertarian or to even stake out some sort of moral ground. My status as a lawyer has nothing to do with my posts on this board, and to continue to mock me for being a lawyer is just a concession on your part that you have nothing else.

You did swear to uphold the constitution, and your cavalier attitude about "rights coming and going" reflects your hypocrisy in this regard. Your posts here are often sprinkled with things you do as a lawyer (usually hinting at how great you think you are), and your position (and arguments) concerning Prop. 8 reflects one who is either ignorant of or just doesn't care about the legal and constitutional ramifications of Prop. 8. Shame on you, counselor.

Why don't you report me to the State Bar as did GoodK?

I see no need. First, GoodK says he didn't report you to the Bar. Second, you're a smart guy and I'm certain that (even though you'd never admit it here) you know in your heart of hearts that the position you have taken on Prop. 8 is the wrong one in every way. You have to look yourself in the mirror every morning knowing how wrong you've been on Prop. 8. That's justice enough, in my opinion.

But, really, your argument about how poor a lawyer I am is just going down that same irrelevant railroad track.

Nope. Because you know I'm right.

[_rcrocket]

You know so little about equal protection. Your posts continue to be so disingenuous, making arguments you know to be completely false. Equal protection applies to all the examples I have listed above, and an equal protection argument was made in all cases which challenged such matters (except the right to vote for women; as far as I know that was never challenged).

[_rcrocket]

I reported no one to the state Bar.

Oh? Yet you continue to castigate me for reporting you to your dad for saying mean things about your sister and your dad, which I did not do? What's the difference?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

And, yes, I took constitutional law and am a constitutional lawyer.

Coulda fooled me.

[_rcrocket]

Perhaps you are easily fooled. Really, you evince such little knowledge of the doctrine of equal protection. That doctrine does not hold that every citizen is entitled to the rights of every other citizen. There are hundreds of thousands of examples around the country, in the states and federal court system, in which differentiation is made. Where a suspect class is not involved, that differentiation can be made rather easily.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act, which Bill Clinton signed, denies to homosexual couples the right of marriage benefits. They can't file joint federal tax returns. As I have previously told you, the DOMA was upheld in an equal protection argument in an Orange County federal court; vacated but upheld by the 9th Circuit.