Also, they have a direct stake in the issue because its a law that presumably they voted for. Because they wanted it. I’d say that’s a stake in the issue. I’m saying that it shouldn’t be only state officials that can defend a law in federal court. Because, just like we’re seeing here, sometimes that means no one would defend that law. Its quite possible for the people and the government to disagree and then the people get screwed.
The issue is, however, that what really comes out of this is the fact that if a state passes a law through the people, as California did with the popular vote, and the government doesn’t like it and won’t defend it, then the people are helpless to do so in federal court. How does that seem right? The whole is there an injury/controversy thing is a mess, but I’m not even talking about that. I’m merely saying, as the dissent pointed out, the Court offered no remedy or solution for the problem it created.
But thats not equal. What’s equal is making rich people pay a higher percentage than anyone else. That’s equality. I move to start an “equal means equal” movement for taxation.
Exactly. I agree absolutely. And furthermore, Polygamy would be extremely beneficial to society as far as reproduction is concerned. Lastly, I’ll add that white Americans are being outreproduced in America. We’re fucked.
Its not that its sweeping, but its precedent. I’ll quote and explain some of Kennedy’s dissent. The question of whether someone has standing (that they are the right person to bring a case to court) in federal court is a federal question. There was, obviously, first an issue in California of whether the proponents had standing in California court. “Under California law, a proponent has the authority to appear in court and assert the State’s interest in defending an enacted initiative when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so. The State deems such an appearance essential to the integrity of its initiative process. Yet the Court today concludes that this state-defined status and this state-conferred right fall short of meeting federal requirements because the proponents cannot point to a formal delegation of authority that tracks the requirements of the Restatement of Agency.” Ie, there is no one or no thing, outside of a case coming to court and that court ruling at that exact time about that case, deciding who can represent someone or something.
“But the State Supreme Court’s definition of proponents’ powers is binding on this Court. And that definition is fully sufficient to establish the standing and adversity that are requisites for justiciability under Article III of the United States Constitution.” Ie, Kennedy and the dissent believe that the fact that these people could have brought the case to the California Supreme Court is enough to fulfill standing for the Supreme Court, whose power and authority and rules are enumerated by Article III of the Constitution.
“The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism [that voters can bring suit about laws to court] to control and to bypass public officials-the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied.”
Here now is the comment in the dissent that I was echoing above: “The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.” Basically, that this case sets precedent for voters to not be allowed (ie have no standing) to bring cases about state laws to FEDERAL courts.
So glad TFM employed a legal scholar…. You do understand that the decision on Prop. 8 basically said voters don’t have standing to take laws they voted for to federal court, right?
#PrayforParks
Also, they have a direct stake in the issue because its a law that presumably they voted for. Because they wanted it. I’d say that’s a stake in the issue. I’m saying that it shouldn’t be only state officials that can defend a law in federal court. Because, just like we’re seeing here, sometimes that means no one would defend that law. Its quite possible for the people and the government to disagree and then the people get screwed.
WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. WE ARE A REPUBLIC. FOR FUCK’S SAKE LEARN A SINGLE GOD DAMN THING IN SCHOOL PLEASE.
The issue is, however, that what really comes out of this is the fact that if a state passes a law through the people, as California did with the popular vote, and the government doesn’t like it and won’t defend it, then the people are helpless to do so in federal court. How does that seem right? The whole is there an injury/controversy thing is a mess, but I’m not even talking about that. I’m merely saying, as the dissent pointed out, the Court offered no remedy or solution for the problem it created.
But thats not equal. What’s equal is making rich people pay a higher percentage than anyone else. That’s equality. I move to start an “equal means equal” movement for taxation.
Exactly. I agree absolutely. And furthermore, Polygamy would be extremely beneficial to society as far as reproduction is concerned. Lastly, I’ll add that white Americans are being outreproduced in America. We’re fucked.
Its not that its sweeping, but its precedent. I’ll quote and explain some of Kennedy’s dissent. The question of whether someone has standing (that they are the right person to bring a case to court) in federal court is a federal question. There was, obviously, first an issue in California of whether the proponents had standing in California court. “Under California law, a proponent has the authority to appear in court and assert the State’s interest in defending an enacted initiative when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so. The State deems such an appearance essential to the integrity of its initiative process. Yet the Court today concludes that this state-defined status and this state-conferred right fall short of meeting federal requirements because the proponents cannot point to a formal delegation of authority that tracks the requirements of the Restatement of Agency.” Ie, there is no one or no thing, outside of a case coming to court and that court ruling at that exact time about that case, deciding who can represent someone or something.
“But the State Supreme Court’s definition of proponents’ powers is binding on this Court. And that definition is fully sufficient to establish the standing and adversity that are requisites for justiciability under Article III of the United States Constitution.” Ie, Kennedy and the dissent believe that the fact that these people could have brought the case to the California Supreme Court is enough to fulfill standing for the Supreme Court, whose power and authority and rules are enumerated by Article III of the Constitution.
“The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism [that voters can bring suit about laws to court] to control and to bypass public officials-the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied.”
Here now is the comment in the dissent that I was echoing above: “The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.” Basically, that this case sets precedent for voters to not be allowed (ie have no standing) to bring cases about state laws to FEDERAL courts.
So glad TFM employed a legal scholar…. You do understand that the decision on Prop. 8 basically said voters don’t have standing to take laws they voted for to federal court, right?
#PrayForParks
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
Dat bio.
^^^You queer, boy?
Well done ladies. Well done.
OMG WHO THE HELL CARES
RFM
^this
Reasons to choose bitches over bitches.
8. She has really big boobs (whether she grew them herself or they were a gift from her stepfather/boyfriend/weird uncle/boss, etc.)
I thought you bragged about/mentioned this?
^this