Skip to main content

View Diary: Prop 8 is dead, but not for the reason you'd want. (140 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Standing: a cowardly out (0+ / 0-)

    Given some of the basic assumptions about questions of standing, the court's majority reasoning makes sense. The interveners don't have any stake in the case at this point, don't have any particular official position to assert, and so on. I find the chief justice's reasoning, at least as presented in the excerpts here, sound and well made. Perhaps part of that may be I have no interest, and so no interest for a federal court, in really defending the initiative or referendum process. To me it's not better democracy, but a method to usurp the constitutional order of representative democracy and the rule of law, and there is nothing that makes laws enacted by popular vote inherently better or more authoritative than other law.

    The problem that I have with the ruling is with the importance that this puts on the concept of standing and the assumptions on which it is based. Basically, issues of standing, at least in cases like this, are little more than a cowardly avoidance tactic, in my opinion. It seems that standing is a topic designed to keep the courts out of things. Standing can be a useful and important matter when applying the concept can be a means to justice, but it should not be used as an avoidance tactic that stands in the way of deciding controversies or doing justice. The courts should presume to have authority to deal with controversies that come before it. Establishing standing shouldn't be a ticket into the courts. Instead a lack of standing should be a tool to be used to prevent perverse results in which deciding a case brought by a certain party or under the circumstances actually leads to harm or injustice to answering party. From such a perspective, the majority opinion is wrong in principle, even if it is right on the basis of precedent.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site