Arnold under pressure: California Republicans ask Schwarzenegger to appeal Prop 8

September 1, 2010 at 5:01 pm 121 comments

By Eden James

The Sacramento Bee is reporting that Republicans in the state Assembly sent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a letter yesterday urging him to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling:

The 27 Republican legislators signing the letter argued that by staying out of the case, Schwarzenegger and Brown will set a precedent that officials “may pick and choose the laws which they will and will not enforce and defend.”

“(Failing to file an appeal) will have a devastating effect upon public confidence in our institutions of representative government,” the letter states. “Politics and personal belief will have been substituted for the sworn duty of our state’s highest ranking elected officials.”

You can read the full letter here (PDF).

The GOP lawmakers sent this letter on the same day that the Pacific Justice Institute filed a petition in California state court, attempting to force Gov. Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend Prop 8 in court.

The good news is that Arnold isn’t caving, apparently:

Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the governor “has been and will remain neutral in this case.”

“The court will determine whether or not the interveners can appeal,” he wrote in an e-mail.

Check out the Sac Bee link for a quote from Courage Chair Rick Jacobs. If more develops, we’ll update the post.

Entry filed under: Right-wing.

NOM staggers toward the fringe NOM’s bizarre “San Francisco Values” ad deconstucted: A point-by-point video takedown

121 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Ann S.  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    C’mon, Arnold, stand firm. Don’t be a girly-man.

    Reply
    • 2. Sagesse  |  September 1, 2010 at 6:32 pm

      Ah, the joys of being termed out. Since they don’t get many points for substance, perhaps we could give the Repubs points for choreography.

      Reply
      • 3. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 1, 2010 at 9:36 pm

        LOL Sagesse, or their own reality show: “So You Think You Can Legislate?”

        Reply
  • 4. Kathleen  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    Glad he’s not caving. And good thing he’s not trying to get re-elected. :)

    Reply
    • 5. nightshayde  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:10 pm

      I’m pretty sure he’d wind up sleeping on the couch if he were to decide to cave.

      Reply
    • 6. ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:42 pm

      Subscribing

      Reply
  • 7. Dave in ME  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen of Wisconsin already set this precedent in 2009: http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/25/focus-on-the-family-vs-focus-on-the-family/. What do the GOP folks say about that?

    Dave in Maine

    P.S. More email please!

    Reply
    • 8. Dave P.  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:19 pm

      Yes, someone posted a list in a previous thread that showed several examples of Govs & AGs refusing to defend. Of course, the Republicans don’t mention those examples because they agreed with those particular choices. Perhaps the folks who wrote this stupid letter to Gov S should be sent a copy of such a list.

      Reply
    • 9. Michelle Evans  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:22 pm

      Yes, there are actually many case of state attorneys general and/or governors who have not defended laws they deemed unfit or unconstitutional. But that’s okay for them to do–as long as the religious right agrees with them. In this case they don’t, so they ignore any precedent from elsewhere–because it serves their purpose.

      Sort of like the whole idea of a judge ruling against a law they don’t agree with, then makes that judge an activist. However, when a judge rules in their favor, then they are talking about “justice.”

      A recent example is Hawaii. Here jerks like Maggie and Brian decry Walkers ‘one man’ decision, yet they applaud when the governor of Hawaii, just a single person, overturns the will of the entire state legislature with regard to civil unions.

      Reply
      • 10. Gregory in SLC  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:32 pm

        A WONDERFUL point Michelle (Hawaii). Re affirms what Ronnie is saying. Cheers to both of you!

        Reply
      • 11. Dave in ME  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:36 pm

        Yes, great point, Michelle! Thanks!

        Dave in Maine

        Reply
      • 12. Bolt  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:21 pm

        We can rub this fact in their face, but they’ll ignore it.

        Reply
      • 13. Sagesse  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:33 pm

        Just as long as the list finds its way into the governor’s and the AG’s responses to this lawsuit. Bet that brief will be fun to write.

        Reply
      • 14. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 2, 2010 at 8:06 am

        Somehow, we need to get the news to report about other Governors and AGs refusing to defend, and the right agreeing with their decisions. What a bombshell that would be!

        Reply
    • 15. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 1, 2010 at 9:39 pm

      I’m sure the GOP are just fine with that decision. It’s only when it goes against what they want that it becomes an issue.

      Sheryl, Mormon Mother

      Reply
  • 16. Gregory in SLC  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    Here is the argument again (rolling eyes) :

    “One unelected federal court judge cannot be
    allowed to void such a decision, let alone do so without recourse to appeal”

    Question: what is the origins of the term “Assemblyman” is it a relic of a historically dominant group (men) and structural oppression?

    Seems good they all put there names down so its clear who is on what side.

    Reply
    • 17. Kate  |  September 2, 2010 at 9:11 am

      Uh….. is it just me, or aren’t all federal court judges “unelected?” And they aren’t about to point out that Meese himself had a big hand in getting Reagan to appoint this particular federal judge!

      Reply
      • 18. Gregory in SLC  |  September 2, 2010 at 6:49 pm

        more eye rolling! doh!

        Reply
  • 19. Episcopal Bear  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:16 pm

    I just LOVE the smell of terrified desperation on the part of the H8ers! And I’m beginning to think they quietly sought the opinion of attorneys & judges on Walker’s decision, and got back nothing but bad news (for them!)

    Reply
  • 20. Ronnie  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    “will have a devastating effect upon public confidence in our institutions of representative government,” the letter states. “Politics and personal belief will have been substituted for the sworn duty of our state’s highest ranking elected officials.”

    Would they be saying the same thing if the types of players were reversed?

    “representative government”? I don’t feel represented…furthermore….the Californians got their chance to vote during elections for who they wanted to represent them in order for said reps. to vote on social & political issues. When those reps didn’t win the battle to stop marriage Equality they went all apeshite “I want to vote on how other people get to live their personal lives”…but if the situation was reversed they’ed tell us to STFU……… : I …Ronnie

    Reply
    • 21. Gregory in SLC  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:21 pm

      Ain’t it the truth!

      Reply
    • 22. Carpool Cookie  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:38 pm

      “Public Confidence” ? ? ?

      What percentage is it of the population that even VOTES, again ? ? ?

      I think the confidence was blasted to smithereens a long time ago.

      Reply
      • 23. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 1, 2010 at 6:29 pm

        Well yes!
        I personally have no confidence in the public!
        :-)

        Reply
      • 24. Carpool Cookie  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:36 pm

        Oh dear, when you put it that way, it seems we’ve lost everything.

        Reply
      • 25. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 2, 2010 at 8:23 am

        Ok, yubanet.com says there were 17,304,091 registered voters in California in the 2008 election. Wikipedia quotes 13,743,177 ballots having been cast, for a 79.42% turnout. However, with an estimated 2009 population of 36,961,664, that’s just under 50% of the population registered to vote here.

        I, for one, have little confidence that the majority of voters are well enough educated and informed about the issues, i.e. those who voted for Prop 8 because ‘teh gayz are ickyz!’

        Reply
      • 26. Carpool Cookie  |  September 2, 2010 at 9:27 am

        But also….what is the adult CA population vs. registered voters. The population is the public. (I’m not being snide, I just thought there was an alarming percent that doesn’t vote, in general……not necessarily having to do with Prop H8, I mean as a general reality.) (Okay, maybe “general reality” is kind of a vague thing to pin down? It’s kind of…general.)

        All I know is, as a registered drama queen, I’m all about sweeping generalizations!

        Reply
      • 27. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 2, 2010 at 2:34 pm

        Cookie, I couldn’t find anything about adults vs. children. Not that I searched terribly hard. I highly doubt half the state’s residents were under-18 2 years ago, though. I have a feeling there was quite a voter malaise, even for such an historic ballot cycle, and I meant the stats to illustrate that.

        That, and I’m fairly prone to sweeping generalizations myself. ;)

        Reply
    • 28. Sagesse  |  September 2, 2010 at 8:57 pm

      @Chris in Lathrop

      Doesn’t the 37 million include children under 18 (or whatever the voting age is)?

      Reply
  • 29. AndrewPDX  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    subscribing, and baking some trail-mix cookies: peanut butter, oatmeal raisin, and chocolate chip with pecans, all in one delicious bite :)

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

    Reply
    • 30. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 6:19 pm

      Can I pretend to be a lurker, and have a cookie?

      Reply
      • 31. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 1, 2010 at 6:55 pm

        Quick! No one’s looking :-)

        Reply
      • 32. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:58 pm

        OM Num num num!

        (because I am not wasting this cookie on Noms)

        Reply
      • 33. AndrewPDX  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:32 pm

        LOL… Sure, there’s always more than enough cookies to go around :)

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
  • 34. Dave in ME  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    “One unelected federal court judge cannot be
    allowed to void such a decision, let alone do so without recourse to appeal.”

    Really? REALLY? Then I guess an amendment to the California constitution really IS an amendment to the US Constitution!

    Dave in Maine

    Reply
    • 35. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 6:22 pm

      The best part of that is, he did not do so without recourse to appeal.

      The D-I’s are appealing right now. That is what this is all about. The 9th Circuit will decide whether they have standing, not Judge Walker, so they merely need to prove that they do, and they have all the recourse they could possibly STAND.

      (bad pun intended)

      Reply
      • 36. AndrewPDX  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:34 pm

        The D-I’s are appealing right now.

        Actually, I don’t find them appealing at all.

        I love puns :)

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 37. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:37 pm

        Could it be that the D-I’s are a-peeling rather than appealing? A-peeling their masks to reveal their desperation?

        Reply
      • 38. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:40 pm

        LOL! Cookies for both of you!!!

        Reply
      • 39. AndrewPDX  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:42 pm

        Or maybe it should have been The D-I’s are appalling right now.

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
      • 40. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:43 pm

        Appealing, appalling, tomayto, tomahto,
        Lets call the whole thing off!

        Reply
      • 41. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:47 pm

        Reply
  • 42. Straight grandmother  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    The heat is on, remember that song?
    Well it is time for me to go to bed it is 2:30 in the morning, but before I go I wanted to ask the Lurkers to come on out and join us once in a while. I hope in the morning when I get up I see a bunch of comments from new people or people who have not posted in a while. I almost forgot, if you do you get a cookie :)

    Reply
  • 48. Kathleen  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    I’m pleased to report that my district’s representative in the California Assembly Mike Eng (D) is firmly on the side of marriage equality:
    http://www.apiequalityla.org/endorsements_support.php

    Reply
    • 49. fiona64  |  September 2, 2010 at 8:29 am

      As is mine, Mike Honda (D).

      Love,
      Fiona

      Reply
    • 50. Ann S.  |  September 2, 2010 at 9:28 am

      I am lucky enough to be represented in the state Assembly by Jared Huffman, who is pro-equality, and in the state Senate by Mark Leno, who is pro-equality.

      Reply
  • 51. Dave in ME  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    Have you seen the seen the latest nasty NOM ad? “San Francisco Values.” Lots of buzzwords to stir up their anger: http://nomblog.com/1822/?msource=EC100901NAT1&tr=y&auid=6921145

    Dave in Maine

    Reply
    • 52. Gregory in SLC  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:37 pm

      That was a topic of discussion recently, LLB posted a wonderful response video :)

      Reply
      • 53. Dave in ME  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:45 pm

        Thanks, Gregory in SLC! There were thousands of unread P8TT emails and I had to just “mark all as read” and move on. So, I missed this one. Thanks!!

        Dave in Maine

        Reply
      • 54. Gregory in SLC  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:58 pm

        I hear you! Such a wealth of information but life still needs attending!

        Reply
      • 55. Carol  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:11 pm

        Perfect response! I hope its exposure on YouTube will help.

        Reply
      • 56. Joe  |  September 1, 2010 at 9:52 pm

        Gregory, I want to thank you for posting such a powerful video that speaks the truth about how we are discriminated against everyday by the right wing and the religion groups. Thanks again for helping us fight for our human/ civil rights.
        Your friend Joe :)

        Reply
      • 57. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  September 2, 2010 at 5:26 am

        Hi Joe :) It was LLB (Lesbians Love Boies) who found this gem. I love the resourcefulness of the Prop8TT community to provide each other with answers/arguments/logic to counter claims/lies. In the past, when family or acquaintances would say “what about this…or that…” I would either be silent or get mad. Neither approach seemed effective. Now I can listen respectfully and reply w/out extra mis-placed emotions because I’m always informed thanks to this group.

        Gregory

        Reply
    • 58. Gregory in SLC  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:50 pm

      Dave – its just amazing they actually spend money and “talent” making these things! I was reading the comments at the NOM blog link you posted …. their perspectives are so like “wow!” it leaves me speechless…makes me wonder how all of us manage to get along on the same planet!

      Reply
    • 59. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 6:36 pm

      Oh yes, there was a huge thread here about that a couple of days ago.

      Reply
    • 60. Dpeck  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:27 pm

      Regarding this recent phrase “San Francisco values” from NOM, I read a quote recently from Marriage Equality spokesperson Molly McKay (who is fabulous BTW!) countering that remark by refering to “NOM’s Utah Values being imposed on America”. Although of course it is a generalization and unfair to good people who happen to live in Utah, I still thought it was a good response.

      Reply
  • 61. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    Apparently, the 27 Republicants who sent this letter either skipped their civics class on the day the duties of the governor and attorney general were covered, or they did not even take a civics class.

    Reply
    • 62. Paul in Minneapolis  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:43 pm

      They were in their abstinence-only class that day….

      Reply
      • 63. Dave in ME  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:53 pm

        Hahah…!

        I don’t get it. Where DO they come off saying this nonsense?

        Anyway, AGT is almost on. I hope Alice Tan Ridley, Michael & Ashleigh, Debra, Grasso, and Jeremy make it through! I think that little Jackie is a ringer and shouldn’t even be on this show!

        Dave in Maine

        Reply
    • 64. Carpool Cookie  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:43 pm

      Ooops, my answer (below) was to your post, as to how kooky the Republicants sound in their letter.

      Reply
  • 65. Carpool Cookie  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    I’ve had some experience fighting local government, and I don’t think it gets much different as you go up the chain.

    Politicians are egomaniacs who will basically say anything to keep their influence and spotlight.

    They know that more than half of what they say has no basis in facts.

    Reply
  • 66. TomTallis  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    I love the rubber stamped signatures on the letter. I’m sure that there was one person in the Republican office with a whole set of rubber stamps just stamping away for half an hour. He/she even missed one line and stamped a signature way too high.

    Reply
  • 67. Bolt  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:56 pm

    Horray for GoProud. The powerless gay group that shovels money towards republican assholes.

    Reply
    • 68. Ann S.  |  September 1, 2010 at 5:58 pm

      Like Ann Coulter?

      Reply
  • 69. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 1, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    As I posted in an earlier topic/thread:

    Happens all the time…funny NOM only speaks up when things aren’t going their way

    1: Nebraska Attorney General Refuses to Defend State’s Abortion Screening Law 8-18-2010

    2: Wisconsin AG refuses to defend new DP law against Christian group’s lawsuit 8-21-2009

    3: McKenna refuses to defend his client; will media notice?
    6-14-2010

    4: “Arizona Attorney General Says He Won’t Defend State’s Immigration Law”
    June 18, 2010

    Reply
  • 70. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 6:13 pm

    Here is what jumped out at me…

    may pick and choose the laws which they will and will not enforce and defend.”

    They did NOT pick and choose what law to enforce. That is an ENTIRELY different issue. They ARE enforcing Prop 8 this very minute.

    Why is it always lies?

    Reply
    • 71. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 1, 2010 at 6:45 pm

      I see. I guess I have just seen too many who have come here twisting the words of Yoshua ben Yosef, and it has made me rather cynical.

      Reply
      • 72. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:19 pm

        I do understand THAT… because it is very true.

        But I try my BEST not to jump to that conclusion… even though I see “Jesus” and automatically cringe as I am reading. It is quite terrible that the person who (whether fictional or not) best represents the ideal of love is so often used as a club to beat us with.

        Reply
  • 73. DWN  |  September 1, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    “These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
    And honor Me with their lips,
    But their heart is far from Me.
    And in vain they worship Me,
    Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”
    -Jesus

    Reply
    • 74. Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan)  |  September 1, 2010 at 6:36 pm

      Hello, troll. How nice of you to drop in and provide tonight’s entertainment.

      Reply
      • 75. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 6:38 pm

        I think that may have been in SUPPORT of my comment, Richard. At least that is how I read it… being about lies?

        Reply
      • 76. nightshayde  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:05 pm

        I took it as being on “our” side, too.

        DWN — if you’re pro-equality, welcome to the site & have a cookie!

        If you’re pro-discrimination, there’s no need for you to stay, and no need for a cookie.

        Reply
      • 77. AndrewPDX  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:37 pm

        I thought DWN was talking about NOM and all them who say one thing but do something completely different.

        I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. — Mohandas Gandhi

        Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
        Andrew

        Reply
    • 78. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:23 pm

      “Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

      Speaks to teaching man’s law over that of God’s….BUT
      it’s Religious Leaders doing this from within their churches
      It would seem even Christ saw the need to separate Church and State.

      Reply
  • 79. Dave in ME  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    If she is pro-discrimination, I would like to extend an invitation to stay and read and ask us questions! Treat us as you would want to be treated and I’m sure everything will be fine.

    I enjoy having a dialog with those who disagree with us. This is the PRIME opportunity to share our views, opinions, and clever clips with them! (Which is what I’ve been complaining about these past few days!)

    Dave in Maine

    Reply
    • 80. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:17 pm

      I’ve decided to share cookies with all lurkers, both those for and against us.

      But only people on our side get milk.

      :P

      Reply
      • 81. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:28 pm

        Cute! Only people on our side ever got Milk…Harvey that is
        :-)

        Reply
      • 82. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:35 pm

        VERY good! I didn’t even get that!! But now I will capitalize Milk whenever I make that joke.

        Well done!

        Reply
      • 83. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:45 pm

        Oh wow! I assumed you did that on purpose LOL
        hehehehehehehehehe

        Reply
      • 84. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:52 pm

        Errr… uh… YEAH! That was ME coming up with that joke! Yeah!

        Nope, you did it, and it is a very good one, thanks!!!

        Reply
      • 85. Carpool Cookie  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:43 pm

        Maybe we can get the other side here addicted to our bounty of Internet cookies….then threaten to yank them away, cold turkey, if they don’t switch sides?

        We Must Cover Every Angle!!!

        Reply
  • 86. Sagesse  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    AFER isn’t the only party in town

    Top GOP Party Strategists Attending Log Cabin Event

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/09/top-gop-party-strategists-attending-log-cabin-event/62348/

    Reply
    • 87. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:25 pm

      The first line of that article reads

      Suddenly, it’s becoming less of a stigma for bigwigs to associate with gays in the Republican Party.

      And on one hand, I want to say “YAHOO! PROGRESS!” and on the other hand I want to say “Stigma? Excuse me??”

      But seeing as we are talking Republicans, I will run with “Yahoo!”

      We win. In little tiny bites and with small, almost hidden cracks, the walls come down.

      Kate, remember those little blue flecks you thought were the sky falling? I bet it was just chips of paint coming off the walls as they start to quiver in anticipation of being knocked down.

      Reply
      • 88. Kate  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:32 pm

        I love you, Anonygrl.

        Reply
      • 89. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:35 pm

        Love you too, Kate.

        :)

        Reply
      • 90. Kathleen  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:55 pm

        Love you both!!

        Reply
      • 91. anonygrl  |  September 1, 2010 at 7:56 pm

        And I love you too, Kathleen.
        :)

        Reply
      • 92. Kate  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:01 pm

        Love is all around……

        Reply
      • 93. Dpeck  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:31 pm

        Hmm. Shouldn’t that read: “Suddenly, it’s become less of a stigma to associate with Republicans. It helps if they are gay.”

        Reply
      • 94. Chris in Lathrop  |  September 2, 2010 at 8:34 am

        @DPeck:

        “Dear Abby,

        “I am a sailor in the Navy. My parents live in a suburb of Seatle and one of my sisters, who lives in Teran, is married to an Islamic extremist. My father and mother have recently been arrested for selling crack cocaine to a kindergarten class and are currently dependent on my other two sisters, who are prostitutes in Tacoma. I have two brothers, one who is currently serving a non-parole life sentence in Texas for the rape & murder of a teenage boy in 1994. The other currently in jail in Florida on charges of incest with his three children.

        “I have recently become engaged to marry a former prostitute who lives in Los Angeles and indeed is still a part-time “working girl”, however, her time there is limited as she has recently been infected with an STD. We intend to marry as soon as possible and are currently looking into the possibility of opening our own brothel with my fiance utilizing her knowledge of the industry working as the manager. I am hoping my two sisters would be interested in joining our team. Although I would prefer them not to prostitute themselves, at least it would get them off the streets and hopefully the heroin.

        “My problem is this: I love my fiancee and look forward to bringing her into the family and of course I want to be totally honest with her. Should I tell her about my cousin who is a Republican?

        http://linkfilter.net/?s=j;jid=20284
        http://www.snopes.com/weddings/embarrass/groomtest.asp

        Reply
  • 95. truthspew  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:16 pm

    Hopefully he’ll do the appeal route. That way this will see the USSC.

    Reply
    • 96. Carpool Cookie  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:46 pm

      The weird thing is, if I were in their position, I wouldn’t be so eager for ANY appeals!

      Do they want the “damage” or Equality to spread wider and wider??

      Reply
      • 97. Carpool Cookie  |  September 1, 2010 at 8:48 pm

        I meant “of Equality” (above), of course.

        Reply
  • 98. cakes  |  September 1, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    In the letter…
    “Upon review of relevant case and statutory law, it is our belief that the proponents of the initiative, who long ago were
    granted intervenor status in the current federal litigation — possess the proper standing to appeal Judge Walker’s
    decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but Judge Walker has strongly suggested otherwise, and we
    simply cannot risk allowing that erroneous view to thwart full appellate review of this important case…”

    First of all, since these individuals have reviewed the relevant cases to determine that the DI’s have standing, are they now planning to submit a brief to the 9th circuit?

    “One unelected federal court judge cannot be
    allowed to void such a decision, let alone do so without recourse to appeal….” yet later they write, “…What we do wish to impress upon you, however, is the importance to our entire system of governance — legislative, judicial…” Did I miss something here or is part of our system of governance the ability and responsibility of a single unelected judge to rule on cases brought before the court? Does the fact that our judges are put on the bench free from the electorate process in order to better preserve the integrity of the courts?

    This letter reeks of hypocrisy!!!!!

    Reply
    • 99. Sheryl, Mormon Mother of a wonderful son who just happens to be gay  |  September 1, 2010 at 9:59 pm

      And hypocrisy from the other side surprises you?? They are all about hypocrisy. If Judge Walker had ruled in favor of Prop 8, there would be no call the AG or Gov to appeal the decision. Even though that would have been 1 judge making the decision. And, isn’t that one of the things they are saying, 1 judge should not make such an important decision.

      Sheryl, Mormon Mother

      Reply
      • 100. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  September 2, 2010 at 6:28 am

        Hello Sheryl / Mom :) That is what my partner keeps telling me as I shake my head in disbelief at some of the hi jinks of the YesON8/NOM camp. I still can’t help being amazed!

        Reply
      • 101. Chris From CO  |  September 2, 2010 at 7:58 am

        this idea of one judge doen’t cut it many judges will have an opportunity to to look at this judges rulling the idea that on judge made several important findings is a fair statement, but this decision was never expected to rest on one judge it was always going to go thru the system no matter what Judge Walker ruled. After the last word is said on this isssue (i hope the SCOTUS is the last word) then we can tally up how many judges ruled on the isssue. It began with one but in the end 13 to a possible 37 judges will have a say on the isssue 1 federal 27 appeals if they all come in, and 9 supreme court justice.

        Reply
  • 102. Todd Shea  |  September 1, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    Thanks for the support Arnold.

    Reply
  • 103. couragecampaign  |  September 1, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    If the Republican members of the assembly are so worried about picking and choosing, why did they choose to violate the state constitution by not passing a budget? That’s only the most important job they have, yet they chose not to do it. They seem much more interested in taking rights from people than in doing their jobs.

    Rick.

    Reply
    • 104. Kathleen  |  September 1, 2010 at 9:59 pm

      It’s a sadly familiar scenario.

      Reply
  • 105. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 1, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    They’re playing for reelection campaign dollars. Contributions will not roll in based on a heated letter to the Governor complaining about the budget. Budgets aren’t sexy. Gay marriage is sexy.

    *takes cookie and waits for comments*

    Reply
    • 106. rf  |  September 2, 2010 at 4:11 am

      1. yes gay marriage is sexy. or i should say marriage equality is sexy.

      2. yes everything a politician does is designed to gain money or support and/or to damage their opponents. Even if there’s a shred of principled thought in his/her head, its filtered through the polls, rhetoric, party line, closeness to an election, money-making potential, etc. before it hits the public.

      Reply
  • 107. Bolt  |  September 2, 2010 at 6:30 am

    Chris Matthews discusses Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, and how it will come into play if the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case reaches the SCOTUS.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-looks-at-growing-gay-marriage-support-within-the-gop/

    Scalia may be a surprise in this case. He could rule in our favor.

    Reply
    • 108. Ann S.  |  September 2, 2010 at 8:12 am

      I hope you’re right, but I don’t expect you to be. I would be astonished if Scalia would rule in our favor.

      It would be intellectually consistent with his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, yes, but I have not come to expect intellectual consistency from Scalia.

      Reply
  • 109. Kate  |  September 2, 2010 at 7:27 am

    The best part of the right’s letter to Arnold:

    “The importance of this court case to millions of Californians and indeed to countless other Americans cannot be overstated.”

    Amen!

    Reply
  • 110. Chris From CO  |  September 2, 2010 at 7:44 am

    Isn’t it funny how it seems the govenor and AG is in a catch 22 on these issues. The OATH they spoke of defending the US constitution and Californias constitution. On one hand there is the ban they could defend but in doing so, they offend the US constitution, under the 14th amendment; or they can chose to defend the DOMA in the US constitution, and then offend the equal protection in the california constitution. As angry as they may be it is double edge sword and there side is asking him to cherry pick what to defend and not to defend, and unfortunatly because these laws dont work together govenor Schwarzenegger has to cherry pick fortunatly his heart says he protect the 14th amendment and the equal protection and ignores the DOMA. He wasnt going to be a winner in this case like so many others our laws contridicts itself on these issue. So as it seems he stood by his oath and unfortunatly offends it. What an unfortunant scenerio.

    Reply
    • 111. Don in Texas  |  September 2, 2010 at 8:19 am

      DOMA is a federal statute and is not part of the U. S. Constitution. Governor Arnold and AG Jerry Brown are upholding their oath to support the U. S. Constitution by refusing to defend the unconstitutional Proposition 8.

      Reply
      • 112. fiona64  |  September 2, 2010 at 8:33 am

        This, right here. ^^

        Love,
        Fiona

        Reply
      • 113. Chris From CO  |  September 2, 2010 at 8:54 am

        You are right on DOMA i kept confusing it as part of the constitution. Becuase of the constitutions bans I still put it in the same group, and think of it that way. But there is a difference. My mistake.

        Reply
    • 114. Carpool Cookie  |  September 2, 2010 at 9:33 am

      “What an unfortunant scenerio.”

      Welcome to life, where things are infinitely more complex than they are in books and movies : )

      Reply
  • 115. Laurel  |  September 2, 2010 at 8:05 am

    I love irony. Republicans are supposedly the party of small government and low taxes. But they are pushing the State of California to appeal Judge Walker’s decision and spend taxpayer money to do it, all for the purpose of arguing that the State has the right to interfere in the private relationships of its citizens.

    Reply
    • 116. Freddy  |  September 2, 2010 at 8:47 am

      So if I am to look at this correctly, of the 80 CA Assembly seats, there are currently 37 that are held by the GOP and of that, there are only 27 that signed this letter. Though it does not show that these other 10 are actually supporters, it does go to show that over 71 percent of the assembly favor SSM. Just thought I would chip in and try and grab me a cookie, do I get the Milk too?

      Reply
      • 117. Carpool Cookie  |  September 2, 2010 at 9:43 am

        Also note how it’s 23 men and 4 women. What a proud representation of society!

        All white? Someone else will have to answer that one….

        Reply
      • 118. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  September 2, 2010 at 10:22 am

        Yes Freddy..you get MILK
        :-)

        Reply
      • 119. Kathleen  |  September 2, 2010 at 10:22 am

        The California legislature has passed marriage equality bills twice in the past – in Sept 2005 and again in Sept 2007. Both times, Schwarzenegger vetoed the bills and there weren’t sufficient votes in the legislature to override.

        Reply
      • 120. Freddy  |  September 2, 2010 at 10:50 am

        @ Carpool Cookie-Here is a link to the current GOP Assy. you can see from the picture on the home page. I think that will give you a good idea of who comprises the members that signed the letter and thanks for the MILK Mark.
        http://arc.asm.ca.gov/

        Reply
  • 121. Top Posts — WordPress.com  |  September 2, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    […] Arnold under pressure: California Republicans ask Schwarzenegger to appeal Prop 8 By Eden James The Sacramento Bee is reporting that Republicans in the state Assembly sent Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger a […] […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to prop8trial@couragecampaign.org

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.

Categories

TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,293 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...