Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Los Angeles Times: "Most legal analysts expect that the court will garner enough votes to uphold existing marriages but not enough to overturn Prop 8"

03/03/09 Los Angeles Times:

This article also has comments by legal scholars:

"While no case forecloses the revision argument, there is no case that really supports it, and most of the cases mildly cut against it," said UC Davis law professor and constitutional scholar Vikram Amar. On the question of retroactive application, Amar said that "[t]here is enough ambiguity in Prop. 8 that the court could easily interpret the measure as not applying to existing marriages. That is a legally plausible interpretation, and it is so clearly the just interpretation that I think getting four votes for that seems easier."

Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec suggests that the California Supreme Court may decide to replace the term "marriage," because Court would otherwise have to accept "Proposition 8 and authorize the people to rewrite the Constitution in a way that undermines a basic principle of equality."

No comments:

Commentators, Subjects and Cases