CGF Lawsuit: OOIDA v. Lindley - AB-962 Unconstitutional

[hasserl]

OK, I got the impression that Krause may not be the favored child and they didn't want to stick anyone else with this loss.

Since there is some obligation for the AG to defend the passed laws there should be some effort in this matter so Krause is stuck. While there were a lot of citations I still got the feeling that this was almost a boilerplate response.

To me it looks like a relatively amateur defense put on because they have to - and that the author didn't get a whole lot of support or oversight.

It must suck to be the red-headed child of the AG's office.

If I'm getting this wrong I hope y'all will correct me.

They have to? You mean how they had to defend prop 8?

[hasserl]

No, the argument is not useless until it's ruled upon in a court of appropriate authority. Prop 8 was not unconstitutional until it was ruled to be. And because there seems to be no interest (stomach) on the part of the state to defend it's laws and constitution on appeal, the ruling of a single lower level judge will stand without further review. Same thing happened in the matter of Prop 187.

The process worked to a point, even though the state did not participate in defending it's laws and constitution which is what I, personally, find offensive as a tax paying citizen.

In both matters the state tacitly, but completely, abrogated it's responsibility to defend the state constitution as lawfully amended by ballot initiative. Last time I checked there is not only a sworn duty incumbent upon an executive officer of the state to defend the laws of the state, but as an attorney admitted before the bar the Attorney General, and his professional staff, have an ethical obligation to represent the interest of their client... the people of the State of California. They do not, IMO, get the luxury of picking and choosing what they feel like defending.... particularly when it concerns initiative constitutional amendments passed by majorities of voters. Those, above all else, command a full and complete examination and argument if challenged.

When the rule of law is subjected to the twists and turns of partisan political wind, our society gets a little closer to it's end.

Nicely put, the mental gymnastics at play refuting this are illogical at best and leaning towards base and desperate.

[OleCuss]

They have to? You mean how they had to defend prop 8?

I'd accept your edit, but I think it was Gray who was pointing out some of the finer points about what can or must be defended and needn't be.

I'm not sure I agree with Gray's statement. Not that I believe that he is wrong in his logic or knowledge of the relevant cases.

My thing is that I think the courts have done a lot of twisting of the obvious over time and it has stymied freedom rather than furthering it. We have come very close to devolving into a krytocracy and that is a pretty nasty development.

[Gray Peterson]

I'd accept your edit, but I think it was Gray who was pointing out some of the finer points about what can or must be defended and needn't be.

I'm pointing out the legal facts.

I'm not sure I agree with Gray's statement. Not that I believe that he is wrong in his logic or knowledge of the relevant cases.

Jerry Brown's office defended the State of California in the In Re Marriage Cases case against Prop 22 and the 1977 statute prohibiting same gender couples from marrying.

Proposition 8 triggered a situation very similar to Romer v. Evans and US Department of Agriculture v. Moreno. Just because it involves marriage issues rather than being able to get the same kinds of protections offered based on race and religion doesn't make it any less applicable.

Also, California Proposition 14 (1963). Reitman v. Mulkey. Pat Brown (Jerry's dad) lost his re-election for supporting the constitutional challenge to that initiative statute. Doing the right thing sometimes has political costs.

My thing is that I think the courts have done a lot of twisting of the obvious over time and it has stymied freedom rather than furthering it. We have come very close to devolving into a krytocracy and that is a pretty nasty development.

I'm sure the southern segregationists agreed with your sentiments circa 1955.

[Window_Seat]

Heads up gags/gals!

CRPA FOUNDATION: Parker Case Update / Injunction Sought to Stop AB 962 (as started by CDMichel).

Another 2 weeks!

Erik.

[BigDogatPlay]

Your underlined comment shows an ignorance, that laws are constitutional until proven otherwise by a court.

I'll take on faith that your use of ignorance is merely a statement of opinion and not a self righteous pejorative.

The state is under no obligation to defend unconstitutional laws in court.

See Article III Section 3.5:

SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative
agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no
power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a
statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an
appellate court has made a determination that such statute is
unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a
statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit
the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a
determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by
federal law or federal regulations.

So then your position is that an executive officer / agency of the state can pretty much whistle dixie if they like since they are not an administrative agency? Please show me where, as an executive officer, the Attorney General or the Governor can declare a law or constitutional amendment unconstitutional by fiat... as they did here through their words and actions. And your extract says that the agency may not declare. I don't see anything in that passage that says the may or may not defend.

Also, it wasn't enacted by the people of the state of California. It was enacted by the voters who bothered to show up to vote in 2008. Subjecting fundamental rights and equal protection that is owned by every person alive in the state to the whims of those who bother to show up is anathema. Gun owners in this state have been subject to the tyrrany of the voting majority.

Well, unfortunately, there is still that pesky concept of majority rules in an election even as hard as some seem so bent to prove otherwise. It's simple math, really...they who win elections get to make the rules. If only five people show up to vote in a state of 35 million, and when the count is done it's three to two in favor of whatever it is, then they win.

But then that is why we have courts isn't it? So elections don't really mean what they say.

Having said that, gun owners in this state have been subjected to a systematic tyranny of a Legislature lawfully elected by a majority of voters who actually show up. Because of that we get the kind of government we deserve. I would submit that the gay community suffered no such governmental tyranny and trying to frame this as a civil rights nexus is, IMO, comparing apples to oranges and just a wee bit narrow on the vision thing. After all, RKBA has been held to be a fundamental right specifically protected under the Constitution of the United States. At that level, perhaps you could point me to the appropriate passage in that document which enumerates a fundamental right to marry?

They are under no obligation to defend a statute, ethical or otherwise, or to appeal a negative decision. Jerry Brown made the right call here, not just because it's the right thing to do, but more important to fiscal conservatives, to save the state millions of dollars attorney fees for something it could not win. Now, the Defendant-Intervenors are on the hook rather than the state. Now that is being thrifty with funds.

And I, respectfully, disagree with that conclusion and I believe that it is something that at it's core is fundamentally wrong with the entire exercise. Not just gays wanting to marry, either. Jerry Brown made the right call politically. End of story.

While it may surprise you that I actually was against Prop 8, just as I was for 187. I am not arguing from the point of Prop 8 being a good thing. I am merely pointing out in both cases the people of the State of California... those pesky few who actually show and vote anyway took it up the duke without benefit of representation before the bar because it didn't suit someone's political agenda.

That is the real tyranny...

[Purple K]

Two Weeks???

[Window_Seat]

Two Weeks???

Go eat a sandwich and take a nap...

Erik.

[hoffmang]

Our opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed today. It has one very interesting tidbit in it that I will be creating a separate thread about.

-Gene

[383green]

Our opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed today.

[HowardW56]

Our opposition to the motion to dismiss was filed today. It has one very interesting tidbit in it that I will be creating a separate thread about.

-Gene

Adobe is telling me that the file is damaged

[hoffmang]

RECAP is misbehaving somehow. Here is an alternate link until RECAP cleans up.

-Gene