In 2004, Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court noted the precedential value of Baker in her Concurring and Dissenting opinion: Lockyer v. San Francisco (2004) 33 C.4th 1055, 95 P.3d 459, 17 C.R.3d 225, 7 Summary (10th) Baker was cited as precedent in the January 19, 2005 case of Wilson v. Ake, argued before James S. Moody, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division: Wilson v. Ake, 354 F.Supp.2d at 1302 The Indiana Court of Appeals noted the precedential value of Baker in an opinion upholding Indiana's Marriage Laws: Morrison v. Sadler, 821 N.E.2d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division also noted the precedental value of Baker, and noted that it was also the controlling opinion in the State in regards to the equal protection claims on the issue of same sex marriage: Hernandez v Robles 2005 NY Slip Op 09436 Upon appeal to the New York Court of Appeals (The Supreme Court in NY State), the State Supreme Court also recognized the controlling nature of Baker, as to the Federal Constitution: Hernandez v. Robles, 805 N.Y.S.2d 354 (App. Div. 1st Dep't 2005) In an opinion upholding Nebraska's Marriage Amendment, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit cited Baker v Nelson and the authority of States on Marriage Law: Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) Justices Johnson and Sanders of the Washington Supreme Court noted the precedential value of Baker in their opinion : Andersen v. King County, 138 P.3d 963 (Wash. 2006) Baker was cited as precedent in Benson v. Alverson, Hennepin County District Court (MN -2011)
posted by Fitz @ 8:43 PM
6 Comments:
"When I try to count the votes in favor of same-sex marriage on the Supreme Court, I have trouble getting to one."
Constitutional law scholar Andrew Koppelman
“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overturned circuit in the country, and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the author of today’s absurd ruling (Prop 8) is the most overturned federal judge in America. Today’s ruling is a perfect setup for this case to be taken by the US Supreme Court, where I am confident it will be reversed."
Constitutional scholar John Eastman
“If there is such a right(same sex marriage) it will have to be manufactured by the justices out of whole cloth."
Richard Posner of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Posner has been called "the world’s most distinguished legal scholar."
You had better hope SCOTUS doesn't hear an appeal of that 2-1 decision because Judge Reinhardt doesn't have the greatest track record when it comes to appeals. In 1997 SCOTUS reversed seven opinions that Reinhardt has either written or been party to, all seven unanimously. Between 1994 and 2004 Reinhardt was party to a whopping 53 decisions reversed by the supreme court. In the last term, of 26 appeals of 9th Circuit court opinions, the Supreme court overturned 18, which is 70%. To make matters worse, Judge Reinhardt was on the panel for six cases and all six were reversed by SCOTUS. which, for those weak in basic math, is 100%. Reinhardt wrote the majority opinion in three of those cases and all three were unanimously overturned. Of the other three, one was overturned unaimously and two by a 5-4 conservative vote. You got to love it,
These retention votes are important as they cast the battle as elites versus the people. Eventually (and soon) a marriage amendment will get past the stymied legislature & obviously pass.
In the meantime these retention votes are changing the face of the Iowa courts and punishing justices who vote there progressive aims and dont follow the law.
FYI - There is a third element readers of this blog may not know. Judicial elites led by the Bar dont like elected State Suprme Courts. They had devised a plan an implemented it in Iowa. Under this plan the Governor is given a narrow field of potential candidates from an "independent" commision (read liberals appointed by the State bar) . He then "chooses" amoung a likeminded group of left leaning judges and the people vote up or down on a one sided field.
This "plan" was supposed to be implemented across multiple states that currently have elected judiciaries..
Then came same-sex "marriage" exposing how this plan slants a judiciary even in such a heavily traditionalist state like Iowa..
Then came the retention votes of 3 of the justices - they all lost!!!
So Iowa voters & same-sex "marriage" has helped expose and deligitimize this scheme of judicial elites to skew the make-up of State Supreme Courts.
Another example of the left shooting itself in the foot. No State will implement this policy now that it has been exposed!
My estimation of gay men & women has taken a nose dive sense this debate first began. Both there ability to engage in civil & logic debate as well as the lack of integrity and honest has lead me to believe that homosexuality itself is more of an physcological problem than I once thought.
Someone once wrote that "sin makes you stupid" and I now agree with the general assesment. They refuse to acknowledge that society ever had a definiton of marriage to begin with, that it is not even POSSIBLE that same-sex "marriage" will effect the insitution & That reproduction has no rational connection to marriage.. All claims that are ill-liberal & anti-intellectual.
I was talking to a group of young doctors about this issue and they responded to me "dont argue with crazy people it will just drive you crazy" refrencing their collective belief that homosexuality should never have been taken off the list of physcological conditions.
Your first point is often heard in this debate, but totally contrary to Supreme Court precedent on the "rational basis" test. See Heller v. Doe and this paragraph from the opinion describing the rational basis test:
Finally, courts are compelled under rational-basis review to accept a legislature’s generalizations even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends. A classification does not fail rational-basis review because it “`is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’”
There is no constitutional right to same sex marriage any more than there is a constitutional right to polygamous marriage. SCOTUS made it perfectly clear over a century ago that polygamy wasn't acceptable in our Christian nation.
Polygamy:
Probably never in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance."
Davis v. Beason
133 U.S. 333, 341-42 (1890)
Polygamy :
"It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world."
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v United States
136 U.S. 1 (1890)
Post a Comment
<< Home