SCOTUS Ruling of No Standing in Prop 8 is Fundamentally Flawed

Today the Supreme Court of the United States once again demonstrated its ongoing failure to comprehend reason and the Constitution of The United State of America.  It’s ruling relative to California’s Proposition 8 is objectionably flawed to the extent that one must question the rational of their collective thought process.

I know that may offend some folks, but so be it.  Getting, or not getting, what you want from a politically motivate court certain generates frustration.  Yet, neither the ruling nor the resultant frustration adequately defend poor and inconsistent judgements.

In short the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that litigants seeking relief had no standing.  By that ruling they in essence declared, “This is to hot of a potato for us to handle, let’s kick it back to a lower court to make the fix.”

In 2002 a proposition (22) was passed in California which stipulated that marriage was between a man and woman.  It was passed as a regular piece of legislation.

The California Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional.

In November of 2008 Proposition 8 was passed by the people of the State of California.  Proposition 8 contained the same language as Proposition 22, but also had the full force of a properly executed initiative behind it.  The people had spoken.

A series of opponents to Proposition 8 lodged protests and filed lawsuits challenging the validity of the proposition.  Ultimately the California State Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 8 WAS constitutional.

Now, here is a relevant point I ask you to keep in mind.  A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ruled in 2010 that Proposition 8 violated the US Constitution.

Following the ruling of the US District Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, another US Court, upheld the ruling of the District Court Judge.  That brings us to today wherein The Supreme Court of the Unite States (SCOTUS) shirked their duty to orule on this matter, by bouncing it back to the lower court.  Now, contrary to my clear displeasure with The SCOTUS I share here their actual decision:

“We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.

Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the Dis­trict Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

My complaint is with the insufficiency of that ruling by The United States Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court should have included that the US District Court’s ruling should also be dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court. In essence their ruling should have gone further to declare, The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and with instructions to dismiss the ruling of the United States District Court and the tainted fruits thereof.”

However, that failing of The SCOTUS is compounded by failure to recognize the fundamental principle of the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In California there is a constitutionally mandated process by which “the people” may establish the regulation of state functions.  The process has been tested and upheld in the courts.  Further, the California Supreme Court, as explained above, upheld “the people’s” decision regarding Proposition 8.

California has a history and state constitution, supported by their Supreme Court, affirming the right of “the people” to legislate the regulations of the state.  The Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution is not arbitrary in affirming that the rights bestowed upon the citizens of California are sacrosanct. The people of California have full state and federal constitutional protection to establish the regulation of their state.

When the United States Supreme Court ruled that complainants against the aggressive nature of the lower federal courts, combined with the dereliction of duty by the State of California officials, had “no standing” they were tragically flawed in their comprehension of the fundamental rights of all citizens in social contract under the US Constitution.

In addition to the amended ruling which I stated above I would now add another sentence.The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and with instructions to dismiss the ruling of the United State District Court and the tainted fruits thereof.  Further, this court finds that the rights of the people of the State of California, acting in a majority through the initiative process, are absolute and clear with respect to establishing state statute, and shall not be abridged except by the people.”

Societies have the right to government as they choose.  Now, it is abhorrently distasteful to citizens of the USA (and I hope to most people) but sometimes societies choose to live under governments which restrict their personal liberties.  In the United States, long ago, we chose to be governed by the will of the people.  Whether one agrees with civil unions and same-sex marriage, or not, should not impede the right of the people to rule regarding their social contracts.  When any government acts in any manner, regardless of how noble they may define their conduct, to overbear upon the people those acts are wrong.  It is the duty of the Supreme Court to assure that the will of the people is defended.


4 thoughts on “SCOTUS Ruling of No Standing in Prop 8 is Fundamentally Flawed

  1. Am I over simplifying it if I say that state of California was wrong not to defend the statute because the people had spoken? Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court should have accepted the vote of the people to be just as valid as the support of the state officials? Why should the Supreme Court begin to choose one over the other because it could go both ways.

    1. Yes, to your first question.
      No, to your second question. SCOTUS should have held the voice of the people as SUPERIOR TO the inaction of the state officials.

      Ok, let me try to respond to the third questions, as succinctly as my verbosity will allow. I begin with the premise that the Framers of the Constitution outlined it with the most important elements coming first. Hence “We The People” hold the highest role in the order of governance. After that they define the legislative role, Executive, etc. The framers originally intended for a “Bill of Rights” to be included in the Constitution. They opted to “come back to it” after the structure of the government was established. It is interesting that John Adams, who actually opposed a Bill of Rights was the most forceful to see it’s inclusion, two years after the original Constitution was adopted. It was important to him that the word of the Continental Congress be honorable.

      Sorry, deviated a little. Within the Bill of Rights, the rights of governance rested with the people, even ahead of the states (Article 9,people’s rights to govern, preceded article 10, states rights to govern).

      From those two presumptions I contend that it was the intent, and currently is the right, of the people to be superior to the their government. If the people through the initiative process adopt a regulation, than the government has an obligation to enforce it. The courts have an obligation to recognize its merits.

      So, again, YES the rights of the people to supersede their government’s right to impose upon them.

    1. Actually, the individual is not protected from the majority. In our constitutional republic the rights of individuals “to be heard” and “plead their case” is protected. However the majority still rules.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s