I am dissatisfied with reporting on courte cases. What I'd like to know is more detailed than is usually provided. I'd like the arguments for each opinion. Here I provide my own summary of the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision.
Full Decision
Wonkblog Post
Brief synopsis - The people of California (not the legislature) passed an amendment to their Consitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Gay marriage advocates argued that this violated their rights so sued to have the amendment declared unconstitutional. The elected officials of California chose not to defend the amendment, and so advocates of the amendment (regular citizens) defended it. The Supreme Court ruled that the advocates didn't have standing.
Decision (Roberts, Ginsberg, Kagan, Scalia, Breyer) - Without injury, one has no standing to defend an issue in court.
Dissent (Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor) - California law provides that one can defend an issue if elected officials choose not to do so.
My thoughts
Implications - Any law that is passed, if elected officials choose not to defend it in court should it be disputed, and no one can claim a direct harm, then these types of laws will become unenforcable. This kind of defeats the purpose of popular referenda. Popular referenda will only be used when the elected officials don't want to pursue or enact them. Therefore, if they're passed, they'll be indefensible in court.
No comments:
Post a Comment