Friday, March 27, 2009

Gay Marriage: Does Equal Protection Trump All?

03/20/09 The Recorder:

Attorney Frank R. Lindh serves as general counsel of the California Public Utilities Commission, and clerked for the solicitor general of the United States during the U.S. Supreme Court's 1984-1985 term. Writing this opinion article as a private citizen, Lindh contends that the California Supreme Court does not have "any difficult legal question" to decide with respect to the constitutionality of Prop. 8.

By approving Prop. 8 voters, exercised their right to amend the state constitution. But Lindh finds that

"[t]he standard rules for interpreting legal documents require that equal protection win out over the right to amend the Constitution by ballot initiative. This is actually easy stuff for lawyers — and usually for judges ... [The Prop. 8] case will turn on the willingness of the Supreme Court to stand up to discrimination, and say 'no' to majoritarian abuse. The justices of the Supreme Court need political courage, nothing more."

03/27/09 The Recorder:

Faulting Lindh for misconstruing rules of constitutional interpretation, San Francisco attorney Edward Taffe also claims that he gives "short shrift to the initiative process."

No comments:

Commentators, Subjects and Cases