« A note on Christian mentoring at PCC | Main | A reminder »

September 30, 2005

Comments

Rainbow

Maybe he is going with his conscience and his own/advisor's analysis? One of the reasons businessmen have garnered political support in recent years -- Perot, Bloomberg, Arnold is the hope that they can survive without patronage and may be less corrupt. If they lose an election, they have another "job" and they won't have to give up their lifestyle.

Xrlq
He's made me unhappy with the marriage veto...

Why on earth? When exactly did adherence to the constitution and/or the rule of law become a left-right issue?

Hugo

XRLQ, because it would have been an extraordinarily bold action to, despite Prop. 22, sign the bill in the higher interests of justice. It would have lost him the already tepid support of Republicans, and it would surely have led to litigation, but it would have been a fine, fine gesture.

Xrlq

If flouting one's oath of office is your idea of a fine gesture, I suppose so. By any other measure, signing a bill one knows to be unconstitutional is gross misconduct - as it was for the Democrats to vote on that bill in the first place. There is a constitutional way to do it - put it to a vote - but Leno & Co. chose not to go that route.

mythago

Hugo, it's win-win for him. The California Supreme Court is likely to find that laws barring same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. Hence his comment about leaving this to the people or the court system (a statement that is a nonsequitur if you buy the idea that the courts are the enemy of The People).

Hugo

Yes, I know many conservatives who weren't happy when Arnold said "Let the courts decide."

Xrlq

Many were, but I wasn't. Some took the comment to mean the court case was a good thing. I took it to mean it was reality: if Prop 22 is upheld AB 845 is unconstitutional, if it's not, it's unnecessary, and either way, its only real effect would be to muddy the waters.

As to Mythago's alleged belief that it is "likely" the Supremes will rule marriage unconstitutional, my offer is still on. You know, the 4-1 bet I originally offered to commenter/legal scholar Sarah in Chicago, but later extended to you after she chickened out. It's amusing how sure of themselves the liberals are until challenged to put their money where their mouths are.

bmmg39

It seems I'm right on every social issue where Ah-nold is left, and vice versa.

bg

Lynn Gazis-Sax

You're in favor of same-sex marriage and opposed to expanding rights for domestic partners, bmmg39? (I mean, that's actually a perfecty rational position, but I'm curious whether you hold it, since more people these days seem to favor the reverse.)

mythago

"Prop. 22 will be upheld as constitutional" on the grounds that it was lawfully enacted, or that a ban on same-sex marriage will be held to be constitutional? Upheld in part or in full? See, you have to be careful, making these bets with a lawyer. :)

I am more than happy to take you up on your bet on two conditions:

--The winner gives the money to a charity, not a political nonprofit. (In other words, when I win, I will ask you to give the money to the Heifer Project or Mazon or something similar, rather than Planned Parenthood.)

--We're betting on whether the California Supreme Court will decide that the limitation on marriage to male-female couples is Constitutional.

Deal?

bmmg39

"You're in favor of same-sex marriage and opposed to expanding rights for domestic partners, bmmg39?"

I probably overgeneralized. I'm in favor of both of those. Just forget I said anything.

bg

Xrlq
--The winner gives the money to a charity, not a political nonprofit. (In other words, when I win, I will ask you to give the money to the Heifer Project or Mazon or something similar, rather than Planned Parenthood.)

Absolutely. Bona fide charities are the idea here, not a "gotcha" to con anybody into contributing to anything they have good reason to find morally or even politically objectionable. I don't know anything about Mazon, but I do know about the Heifer Project, having volunteered for it in the past, and would have no problem contributing to them again in the unlikely event that I lose. And in the more likely event that I win, I promise not to make you contribute to the Heritage Foundation, the NRA Foundation (or whatever it's called), or any other organization whose status as a legitimate charity the average non-conservative would question. Post-Katrina, I contributed to Mercy Corps, Salvation Army and the Humane Society; I'll probably stick you with something similar.

--We're betting on whether the California Supreme Court will decide that the limitation on marriage to male-female couples is Constitutional.

Close. That is the issue we are betting on; however, we are not necessarily betting that the California Supreme Court will be the one to rule on it. If the California Supreme Court rules on the issue, they determine the bet. If they don't, the bet will be determined by whatever binding precedent the Court of Appeal issues instead. If the Court of Appeal ducks that issue, or if they rule on it but the California Supreme Court reverses or vacates the precedent without ruling on the merits of the issue themselves (cf. the U.S. Supreme Court on the Pledge of Allegiance), all bets are off.

I will throw in one more caveat, though: the bet only works if both sides are truly adversarial. Up to this point, Bill Lockyer appears to have defended Prop 22 in good faith, but that doesn't mean he'll necessarily continue to do so. Given his history, I don't put it past him to take a dive on the appeal just so he can "lose" the case and end up with a political result he himself favors, just as he did a few years back while purporting to defend Prop 187. Conversely, in the less likely event that the anti-22 folk have a change of heart, decide Prop 22 should be upheld after all and dropped their challenge, I wouldn't count that as a victory for my side, either. Courts can rule sua sponte that both parties are full of crap, but they very rarely do, so I think it is fair to say that if there's ample evidence that both parties ended up really being on the same side of the issue, that side should not be able to claim a "win" from the court, which will have little choice but to rule in both parties' favor. [OTOH, if both parties generally colluded to push the case one way, and the court ended up ruling the other way anyway, that definitely would count, big time.]

Deal?

BritGirlSF

I'm having difficulty grasping the idea of anyone using the words "astute" and "Arnold" in the same sentence.

If the Court of Appeal ducks that issue, or if they rule on it but the California Supreme Court reverses or vacates the precedent without ruling on the merits of the issue themselves (cf. the U.S. Supreme Court on the Pledge of Allegiance), all bets are off.

Fair enough.

If Lockyer were going to take a dive, he would have done it already--I'm certainly willing to say the bet is off if the AG says "we're not going to take this to the California Supreme Court". Doesn't count if his efforts to fight for Prop 22 are not as vigorous as a subjective observer thinks he ought to be.

Deal?

Xrlq

Deal.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004