March 30, 2017

August 15, 2013

California Abandons Rule of Law to Suit Gays

The case of Perry v. Brown (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger), about which I wrote at length here (and in further posts linked at this page), was a case of collusion to produce a desired outcome, namely, the disenfranchisement of the voters of California who passed Proposition 8—in favor of a tiny minority of gay-rights activists, and their left-wing supporters.

Nevertheless, it was just the decision of a single federal district court, in San Francisco. Since both California’s elected governor and attorney general refused to appeal it, the Prop. 8 supporters hired attorneys to prosecute the appeal, only to have it thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court because the supporters lacked federal standing. Dismissal of the appeal meant that Judge Walker’s original decision and injunction—directed only at certain named individuals, and protecting only two gay couples—would become final. As I wrote in this post:

Such a decision would have no precedential value, except to the extent that other district judges—if presented with the same question—choose to follow it. There are four federal judicial districts in California—Northern, Eastern, Central and Southern. Even though Judge Walker has enjoined the Governor, the Attorney General, the State Registrar of Vital Statistics, and the County Clerk-Registrars of Alameda and Los Angeles Counties from applying Proposition 8, he has no ability to extend his injunction to the county clerks of each of California’s 56 other counties. (That is a consequence of the plaintiffs’ bringing in as defendants only those County Clerks whom they knew would not oppose their case.) Moreover, as this commentator points out, Judge Walker did not certify a class of plaintiffs, so arguably his injunction would permit only the named plaintiffs to get marriage licenses. (Watch how quickly the San Francisco County Clerk ignores that limitation.)

Proposition 8 is still the law in 56 counties of California, but neither the Governor, the Attorney General, nor the State Registrar will follow it or apply it; instead, they openly defy it. Governor Brown has issued a showcase “order” to all County clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses, even though State law gives him no authority to do any such thing.

Yesterday the California Supreme Court dismissed—without opinion—two petitions for writs of mandate brought by the supporters of Prop. 8. They had asked the Court to order the Governor and the Attorney General to follow the law of this State, instead of subverting it. But the Court could not be bothered with such a non-issue these days as an elected official who disregards the law.

The officials, being all Democrats, are impervious to impeachment proceedings, because their party controls both houses of the Legislature.

And Governor “Moonbeam” Brown is a hopeless case, as is the State Legislature: just this week, the Governor signed into law a bill passed by the Legislature which prevents schools from enforcing gender restrictions for school bathrooms or for sports teams—all to serve the whims of transgender students, who apparently change their minds from day to day about what “sex” they want to be.

It is a truism to point out that as California goes, so eventually goes the rest of the country. With the most lawless President ever at the helm, and the most spineless Congress in history, look for lawlessness to become the way by which all problems will in the future be solved.

But the people must want it that way, because they keep electing Governor Browns and California legislators back into office. And the people will get just what they deserve.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



I never thought that I would ever entertain the notion of wide-spread anarchy in this country!  Now it seems to be established practice among our leaders with growing acceptable among the general population.

[1] Posted by Nikolaus on 8-15-2013 at 07:43 PM · [top]

<rant> I would not be so quick to blame “the people” who elect bozos, when the bozos are in extremely gerrymandered super-safe districts and the so-called news media cannot be bothered to even pretend at anything like honesty, much like any semblance of objectivity or even-handedness, and the bozos have re-election war-chests funded by wealthy people who care about only one thing, and it’s not the rule of law. Oh, and the major media are owned by the same people funding the bozos.

“The People” are outnumbered, out-shouted, out-gunned and generally too busy scraping by on part-time and temporary jobs one step ahead of or behind foreclosure to bother with the actions of people so remote from their situations. Some people vote. Some people vote intelligently, having done their citizen-ly duty of research and investigation. But as for “the people” wanting any of this malarky, really, if it were presented to them honestly as a choice? I have my doubts.

Indeed, Prop. 8 passed through a rare combination of forces, and perhaps if and when “the people” realize that the invulnerable bozos and their invulnerable godfathers are really vulnerable at the voting booth (a big if, but people even in California are capable of getting ticked off), perhaps the situation will change. I’m giving “the people” the benefit of the doubt, because I know just how difficult everyday life is for many if not most of them. </rant>

[2] Posted by ears2hear on 8-15-2013 at 09:13 PM · [top]

I don’t know about anyone else from California, but I don’t like having my vote nullified by the same people who are sworn to uphold the LAW…..ALL of it…..while at the same time they KOWTOW to special interest groupies like the LBGTQ crowd.  I think it’s time to rise up against Governor Brown and the elected Supreme Court justices who have perpetrated this injustice against us by calling for a Recall Election, and the sooner the better.

[3] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-15-2013 at 09:47 PM · [top]

The people in these positions of power have thrown off completely their duty and now are rulers of the people.  This is happening all across this nation and primarily in the “blue” states.  When the “red” states resist this change they will be forced to accept the rule of these self appointed aristocrats at the end of gun barrels.  I daresay that in the remainder of my lifetime (I am 61) that is will be highly possible to see Soviet style elections which we are currently not far from and a declaration that the Constitution is now null and void since it just so out of date with current society.  If I have to I will water the tree of liberty.  It may be that I will have to raise my voice and shout “Remember the Alamo” as I live in Texas.

[4] Posted by BillB on 8-15-2013 at 11:17 PM · [top]

That Judge Walker even heard this case makes the entire situation a gross miscarriage of justice.

[5] Posted by Words Matter on 8-16-2013 at 12:52 AM · [top]

We joke that we need to take our passports when we go to see my sister and brother in California, because it’s another country.  Sadly, however, this lawlessness is also in the White House and executive branch these days.

Here’s the trend, succinctly stated:  Democrats simply ignore the law if they can’t bully the law-making bodies into doing what they want.  Adjust your votes accordingly, wherever you are, and don’t make the error of thinking that your Democrats where you live aren’t like the ones in California or the White House.  Even if they’re not, intrinsically, they’ll be bullied into behaving like bullies.

[6] Posted by Katherine on 8-16-2013 at 07:05 AM · [top]

So the Prop 8 plaintiffs were effectively denied a hearing in the Supreme Court based on a legal technicality (standing), but the legal technicality of limited application for the district court ruling gets completely ignored, and the CA Supreme Court will do nothing about it. We truly are living in a time when the rule of law is disintegrating, replaced by the arbitrary rule of Latin American-style strongmen and their cronies.

[7] Posted by David Fischler on 8-16-2013 at 07:38 AM · [top]

Sigh.  CA is a big mess.  They will be “going the way of Detroit” soon, as they are writing checks they cannot cash and refuse to face this fact.  It’s just a matter of time.


[8] Posted by B. Hunter on 8-16-2013 at 07:56 AM · [top]

Yes, it is that bad.  These people are governed by some sort of irresponsible ignorance that maintains human nature may be improved by the rejection of unfashionable aspects of western civilization, logic, and judeo-christian norms.  The requirement to uphold the law is irrelevant when there is an opportunity to ‘correct’ a ‘wrong’ of past. 

The integrity of the law and democracy fall lower on the hierarchy of importance. 

A nation of their ilk will surely elevate a despot.

[9] Posted by tired on 8-16-2013 at 08:03 AM · [top]

Violating the rules to establish a problem for an organization seems to be a technique with long standing. As I type this I am thinking of the original “ordinations” of women at the Church of the Advocate in Philadelphia in the 1970s. I am sure it is a manipulation that has been used throughout history, however what is being undermined is the right of a given group of state residents to self-determination. And when elected administrative officials set themselves up as interpreters of laws’ validity, it opens the door to larger abuses with greater lawlessness. I think the prevailing issue here is a sideshow distraction…what is really going on is an increasing tyranny and abuse of power by an elite few. Those elites would not appreciate it if the system was being rigged in the other direction, and they might just have themselves to blame someday if that indeed comes to pass.

[10] Posted by Adam 12 on 8-16-2013 at 08:57 AM · [top]

The school bathroom issue Allan mentions in the post illustrates where we all might be headed if the rest of the country follows California’s lead. How long before the restrooms at LAX are open for anyone who chooses to follow their gender identity of the day? Or perhaps they have already done as the Episcopalians did at their last General Convention.

[11] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 8-16-2013 at 08:58 AM · [top]

Yeah, they did that, and MEN and WOMEN restrooms were there too.  The same thing is happening at stores…..Target Stores, for example.  What’s next…..the same thing at Episcopal churches?  What’s the matter?  MEN and WOMEN restrooms aren’t enough?

[12] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-16-2013 at 09:29 AM · [top]

And I meant every word I said about a Recall Election.

[13] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-16-2013 at 09:31 AM · [top]

Can someone tell me how the CA Supreme Court can dismiss those cases without an opinion??? It looks to me that they aren’t just dimissing it.  Its more like they are showing perfect contempt for the idea that the governor should uphold the law as if its completely without foundation to expect him to do so.

How do they get away with this stuff?

[14] Posted by StayinAnglican on 8-16-2013 at 09:42 AM · [top]

14, how do they get away with it?  When you ignore the law, have all the guns and instruments of government under your control, you can.  It’s the law of dictators.

[15] Posted by Br. Michael on 8-16-2013 at 10:19 AM · [top]

The DEMONCRATS may think they control the legislature, but they DON’T control the voters…..and we are getting thoroughly fed up with both Governor Moonbeam and the justices.  What “justice” is there when they won’t enforce the law?

[16] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-16-2013 at 10:47 AM · [top]

#16, who are you going to recall?  Brown?  That leaves the CA Supreme Court in place.  Can you recall them, too?  You can’t pass a proposition saying the SC is wrong on this issue; they’ll declare it invalid.  Have at it on the recall—you got Davis a few years ago, although that didn’t turn out to be any lasting benefit.  Until conservatives in CA begin actively taking over local and regional governments and winning state elections, you’re not going to be able to make much improvement.

[17] Posted by Katherine on 8-16-2013 at 11:00 AM · [top]

Katherine #17:

Actually, we can remove Supreme Court justices.  They come up for approval on the ballot.  The voters have removed justices in the past (Rose Elizabeth Bird comes to mind).

David Katzakian

[18] Posted by sactohye on 8-16-2013 at 11:05 AM · [top]

Go for it, David Katzakian.

[19] Posted by Katherine on 8-16-2013 at 11:35 AM · [top]

The reality is, despite this mockery of the rule of law, there won’t be any recalls or any such thing of Governor Brown or any other Democrat or liberal judge here in California - at least not for the forseeable future.  Although I am in great sympathy with cennydd13 and sactohye, the reality is that the voters in this state have drunk the liberal kool-aid.

What I find interesting is this - from a legal standpoint, the constitutional section enacted by Prop. 8 remains in place and effective, except that one district judge issued a limited and specific injunction against it being enforced; and the executive branch is illegally refusing to obey the California constitution, but no court is willing to make them enforce the law.

So, what does this mean?  It means that if California ever does recover from its liberal coma, and regains common sense, that the California constitutional section banning same-sex marriage remains in place and could begin to be enforced once again by a new governor and attorney-general.  And the courts couldn’t say that this was a “change” because it wouldn’t be.

I expect that the liberals know this and will try to also repeal Prop 8 in an initiative.  However, this development could make such an attempt very difficult as the media will do its best to declare that Prop 8 is “dead”, was “overturned”, etc.

[20] Posted by jamesw on 8-16-2013 at 03:18 PM · [top]

[18]  Sactohye, when enough people get fed up about judges nullifying the majority vote, things will begin to happen.  There was a time before the Civil War when South Carolina attempted to nullify Federal laws, and the Treasury Department sent Revenue cutters and officers to enforce those laws.  I am not saying that anything like this could ever happen in our courts here, but might there be some legal actions against such judges if they persist in nullifying the vote of the majority when it is clear that they have denied the will of the majority by claiming that their vote is or was “unconstitutional?”  I’m no lawyer, as you know, but I think this is something to think about.

[21] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-16-2013 at 05:29 PM · [top]

Rose Bird refused to enforce the law, and she was removed from office.

[22] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-16-2013 at 05:30 PM · [top]

I’m not a lawyer, or from California, but I did skim Judge Walker’s ruling and have read some commentary. He clearly has an interest in the issue, and he comes to conclusions deeply bigoted and prejudicial. Can’t he be recalled? Or impeached? At least censured?

[23] Posted by Words Matter on 8-16-2013 at 06:38 PM · [top]

We need a lawyer’s opinion here.  Any takers?

[24] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-16-2013 at 07:47 PM · [top]

[23]  Words Matter, he can be recalled, but unless he commits a crime or an act for which he could be charged with malfeasance of office while in the performance of his duties (I am a former Civil Grand Juror), he can’t be impeached.

[25] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-16-2013 at 09:04 PM · [top]

By rights, Judge Walker should’ve recused himself from the case based on the fact that he is gay.

[26] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-16-2013 at 09:07 PM · [top]

Not just gay, but partnered, with a clear interest in the outcome of the case.

[27] Posted by Words Matter on 8-16-2013 at 10:00 PM · [top]

Oh, and did his fellow judges know about this?  Because if they did, and did nothing, then they may be as culpable as he is.

[28] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-16-2013 at 10:29 PM · [top]

Or so it might seem.

[29] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-16-2013 at 10:30 PM · [top]

cennydd13, and WordsMatter, a couple of clarifications:

(a) Judge Walker, being a federal judge, cannot be recalled. His appointment is for life and “good behavior”—i.e., he may only be impeached and removed by the Senate—a majority of whom are Democrats.

(b) His bias due to his homosexuality and same-sex partnership was challenged by the Prop. 8 supporters during the proceedings in his court. The chief judge of the district court for the Northern District refused to remove him, and that was the end of that.

(c) As I said at the outset of my post, the case was engineered and designed from the very beginning to produce the desired result: the plaintiffs brought the case in the Northern District, and its assignment to Judge Walker was no coincidence. They knew that neither the Governor nor the Attorney General would defend Prop. 8, and they joined as defendants only those County Clerks (in Alameda and Los Angeles) whom they knew would be sympathetic to their cause.

As a result of (c), Judge Walker’s entire judgment is subject to challenge in another proceeding, because federal jurisdiction under the Constitution extends only to “cases and controversies”—which means there have to be two genuinely opposed sides. Since the Supreme Court found no standing on behalf of the Prop. 8 supporters, the same holding should nullify the proceedings in Judge Walker’s court, where there were no real opponents.

But that was a question for the Ninth Circuit judges to determine, and they punted on it. So that leaves the issue to be raised as a collateral attack on the validity of the judgment when a County Clerk somewhere in California refuses to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple, and they take that Clerk to court.

This entire case, as I say, leaves a knowledgeable lawyer sick over the abdication of judges, and the abandonment of the rule of law.

[30] Posted by A. S. Haley on 8-16-2013 at 11:26 PM · [top]

Thank you, Mr. Haley, as well as cennydd13.  It leaves an ignorant layman sick as well. The alternative e the rule of law, or the law of the bullies. I’m reading comments on another blog from atheists, gay rights advocates, and proponents of the HHS mandates who openly call for banishing Christian voices from the public square in politics, social services/charitable work, and the like. Bullies, indeed.

[31] Posted by Words Matter on 8-17-2013 at 12:48 AM · [top]

None of whom deserve respect.

[32] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-17-2013 at 01:32 AM · [top]

Attach the word “justice” to any desire, and the ends justify ANY means to these people - whether or not it has anything to do with “justice” - and most of the time it does not.

[33] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 8-17-2013 at 07:41 AM · [top]

A.S. Haley, a County Clerk would have standing to challenge the Walker ruling, is that correct?  Then the case could go back to the Appeals Court, and the Supreme Court, to be reviewed on the merits.

As to impeaching Judge Walker, it could be done, but the likelihood is small, and the current Senate would surely vote against conviction and removal.  One federal judge was impeached and removed for accepting bribes,—and is now a U.S. Representative (Alcee Hastings, D-FL).

[34] Posted by Katherine on 8-17-2013 at 08:46 AM · [top]

I believe Walker retired, so the issue of removing him is moot.


[35] Posted by sactohye on 8-17-2013 at 09:11 AM · [top]

Even so, if I remember correctly, any Federal officer…..military or otherwise, which Judge Walker was…..can still be disciplined for acts or other indiscretions committed during his/her term of office, and therefore it could result in loss of freedom or pension.  Judge Walker’s freedom wouldn’t be an issue, but his pension might be another matter, in my opinion as a retired military member.

[36] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-17-2013 at 10:47 AM · [top]

When I used to live in San Francisco, I used to do long runs through the unfashionable part of the city—the part bordering the Pacific Ocean, heading down towards Daly City. Cresting a hill, I would look out at acres upon acres upon acres of regular family houses. And when my run would take me past those houses, I would see regular people of all different colors and faiths. And I would think to myself: “Do these people really support same-sex marriage? San Francisco has a reputation for being uber-liberal, but these don’t look like uber-liberal people to me.” Let alone Oakland or other areas of the East Bay (where Alameda county is).

We’re not going to win in the long run simply by legal maneuvers. As much as they may deny it, judges and politicians are swayed by the cultural attitudes of the day, even when deciding on moral issues. So the way to get the judges behaving differently is getting the people to think differently. And getting the people to think differently is possible even in San Francisco.

The key to swaying the people, I think, is appealing to the justice of our position. Supporters of SSM have been able to portray their side as the just side, with our objections not being based on justice but being based on religion or on tradition. And, to be honest, if I thought they were the just side then I would be on their side. If it is Justice versus Religion, then Justice wins. If it is Justice versus Tradition, then Justice wins.

California isn’t as blue as it is being made out to be. There are a lot of people who are uncommitted on this issue—the equivalent of the swing voters that decide elections. But we’re going to have to reach out to them on the basis of what we share—a desire for justice—rather than on legalistic grounds.

[37] Posted by IWTH on 8-18-2013 at 02:26 PM · [top]

Unfortunately, this is true, for the most part.  However, our state isn’t as liberal as so many people think we are.  Liberalism is concentrated most heavily in the major population centers, but it’s a different story out in the agricultural areas which are huge in comparison to the big cities.  We don’t have the political clout that the liberals have in these areas, and this means that we’re going to have to work to change things.  People in our areas are fed up, and we want change.  The justices of our Supreme Court are all up for reelection next year, and I think there’ll be some changes in the Court.

[38] Posted by cennydd13 on 8-18-2013 at 10:43 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.