LA County joins fight to overturn Prop. 8 ...

[_Rollo Tomasi]

But then you run into the argument about ex-cons, specifically sex offenders. They are a "group of people" that do not have the same rights and freedoms that everyone else does. Does this clause apply to them as well?

Sure, but the gov't has to show a good enough reason for the discrimination (under the lesser standard of "rational" since sex offenders are not a "suspect class").

Plus, we need to throw in the obligatory slippery slope. Does polygamy, incest, bestiality, man/appliance fall into this as well?

Same analysis (polygamy and incest were addressed in a footnote in the CA supreme court's decision).

Immigrants are not given the same rights in that they cannot become President. Should we change this law?

It could be done by amendment (which some supporters of Arnie Schwarzenegger wanted to do), but note that such an amendment would expand a right, not take it away (like Prop. 8 does). That's why this case is so unique. Amendments in the past have been used to expand rights and freedom, NOT take them away (which is what Prop. 8 was intended to do).

[_asbestosman]

Amendments in the past have been used to expand rights and freedom, NOT take them away (which is what Prop. 8 was intended to do).

In CA perhaps. In the US constitution, there was that one ammendment that briefly took away the right to consume alcohol.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Amendments in the past have been used to expand rights and freedom, NOT take them away (which is what Prop. 8 was intended to do).

In CA perhaps. In the US constitution, there was that one ammendment that briefly took away the right to consume alcohol.

But unlike the constitutional right to marry, the right to drink alcohol has never been viewed as a fundament right.

[_asbestosman]

But unlike the constitutional right to marry, the right to drink alcohol has never been viewed as a fundament right.

But that could easily change if Supreme Court justices read it in there just as they did with marriage. Apparently neither word actually appears in the Constitution.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

But unlike the constitutional right to marry, the right to drink alcohol has never been viewed as a fundament right.

But that could easily change if Supreme Court justices read it in there just as they did with marriage. Apparently neither word actually appears in the Constitution.

True, in theory, but I don't think you'd find anyone who would agree that the right to drink alcohol is on par with the right to marry, freedom of speech, etc., for which the courts will apply the compelling state interest test.

[_Calculus Crusader]

"Fundamental rights" are not those "rights" which were conjured out of thin air by four judges less than 6 months ago. I think these crybabies are only going to make it easier for us to recall Ron George and his three stooges when the time comes.

Recall Ron George

[_Rollo Tomasi]

"Fundamental rights" are not those "rights" which were conjured out of thin air by four judges less than 6 months ago.

Equal protection under law was not "conjured" 6 months ago ... maybe over 200 years ago.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I think these crybabies are only going to make it easier for us to recall Ron George and his three stooges when the time comes.

Recall Ron George

So much for independence of the judiciary. Sigh ....

[_Calculus Crusader]

I think these crybabies are only going to make it easier for us to recall Ron George and his three stooges when the time comes.

Recall Ron George

So much for independence of the judiciary. Sigh ....

Yeah, I'm funny about wanting judges to act like judges and not members of a superlegislature. That requires them to restrict themselves to the actual text of the state of federal constitutions and not make recourse to a fantasy one.

[_Sethbag]

Were you fine with Ron George and his previous rulings, right up until he made this one ruling you really disagreed with?