Prop 8 goes to Court

Prop 8 discussed in terms of "is." Thank you Ken Starr

Proposition 8, the most watched ballot initiative in the 2008 presidential election, has come to a 90 day hiatus as the California Supreme Court discusses the legality of its original placement on the November ballot in the first place. Here's the deal, and I hope the California Supreme Court is listening very close right now, this is a slam dunk for you!

Proposition 8 should not have been placed on the ballot without being approved first by the state legislature at a 2/3 aye vote

Here's How I know that:
Two years ago, the Supreme Court issued a stop order on Gay Marriages coming out of San Francisco saying they were not legal.
A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled that not allowing Gay Marriage was unconstitutional and struck down your previous hold on San Francisico Marriage Licenses for Gays. Thereby saying that Gays have the right to marry.
Then, an interest group put a ballot measure up that would limit the rights (rights that you had secured in your previous ruling) of Gays to get married. Here's the tricky part. That would substantially change the California Constitution as you are limiting the rights of a group of people.

Therefore, regardless of what you think about the rights of gays to get married, the political process, the will of the people, or whatever - You have to, because of your previous ruling and the posting of this ballot measure, rule it illegally placed on the ballot and strike it down.

On a side note: California State Legislature, you need to find someway to get a civil unions bill out to the Governor that he can sign so this whole thing can be done with. Or you can expect another Prop 8 in 2010, and it will take far less voters next time to win.

So the Opinion:
1. Strike down Prop 8
2. Enact Civil Unions Bill
3. Enjoy the stability in your state economy due to shared partnerships

Independence in our Courts

No Introduction, let's just get into it, eh?

West Virginia judge benefits from massive 527 support and turns around to support 527's major donor in appeal.

It is interesting to me that there is so much concern for a justice's impartiality regarding decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court is discussing the issue as a case for determining when a judge should recuse themselves from a case that they may have some vested interest in. When you're talking about anyone who is relying on the campaign contributions of interested parties (read here: special interests) you will absolutely and always receive an elected official, be they of any branch of government, that is beholden to those that have put them into office. This is why the U.S. Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment - so one does not have to campaign. The same is true for our congresspeople and our executives, you pay enough to get them elected and they give you a little bit of legislative pork.

Further, there are 39 states that currently elect judges at some level of the judiciary and many are claiming that judges should not be elected to insure impartiality. However, that is not the issue. The issue at hand is:
1. Yes, all people are provided a right to free speech
2. Yes, you can choose to exercise that free speech during a campaign
3. Yes, that can come in the form of a donation to a campaign
4. NO, that cannot come in the form of buying a seat

When an individual, organization or company is capable of spending $3 Million on a 527 organization that is trashing an individual running for office, that company should be censured and / or boycotted. However, it is not our place to say tsk-tsk to a company that is only acting within the rules that we have regarding elections.

And while it is a problem of our campaign finance system, it is also a problem of the electorate that listened to a narrow-viewed group of people that were running ads from a very particular slant.

So the Opinion:
1. Don't focus on recusal - that's not the whole issue, that's a symptom. The fact that this justice so badly judged the situation should mean his ass gets booted in the next election and it is an unfortunate circumstance of the situation. Instead, why not stop the process that leads to such partiality and limit 527 action / campaign financing by small groups with big mouths. Which leads to option 2;
2. Fix the campaign finance laws / Don't elect judges - preferably the first as that can also affect our purchasing of Governors, Legislators and other elected officials and electing judges is not entirely a bad thing as it allows for flexibility in the judiciary;
Or 3. Pray that voters spend a little more time looking at where a message is coming from - this is much less likely to come to fruition, so back to option 2.

-----
Today's Quote
"Even Sheep should have brains enough not to follow the wolf."
Joseph Goodfield