This hopefully will be my last post on Judges (Please stop cheering) I’ve written about why we should vote NO on State Supreme Court Justice Kennard, my picks for LA County Superior Court Seats and how I’m voting on LA’s Appellate judges.
Finally, there is Carol Corrigan. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently appointed her to the State Supreme Court. Corrigan was appointed just after the Susan Kennedy debacle and some were relieved that she was at least registered Republican. Conservatives know that being a Republican isn’t necessarily good. (Souter, Stevens and Ron George here in CA)
Almost immediately there signs of some problems. She said the she admired the judicial philosophy of Sandra Day O’Conner. (I would like someone to tell me what that is; to me it is I know better than anyone else so I will cobble together some type of majority opinion to make it work)
I was told she was very pro-business. I’m not sure what that means. The Governor is "pro-business"- but in most actions really isn’t.
So I decided on this basis. The biggest case the State Supreme Court will hear next hear is probably, the Prop. 22 homosexual marriage case. Prop. 22 won at the appellate level, but is on appeal. How will Corrigan vote? No one really knows, some clues are disturbing. Here is what the state’s largest gay lobby had to say,
"We are encouraged by Justice Corrigan’s appointment to the State
Supreme Court and what that means for LGBT Californians,”
See the whole release here
The Log Cabin Republican Club supports her. The Courts make up isn’t that good. I also understand that we don’t know what kind of appointment the Governor would make. To me its time to reshuffle the deck and maybe we will get lucky.
October 23rd, 2006 at 12:00 am
Gee, Mike, I read the the opinion from the Court of Appeal on the Gay Marriage case and I did not see it as a “win” for a Prop 22 case. Perhaps I am mistaken?
In part, the decision stated, “In the final analysis, the court is not in the business of defining marriage. The Legislature has control of the subject of marriage, subject only to initiatives passed by the voters
and constitutional restrictions [Citations omitted.] If marriage is to be extended to same-sex couples, that change must come from the people-either directly, though a voter initiative, or through their elected representatives in the Legislature.” If Prop 22 applied in the case before the court, like you assumed it did, then the phrase “or through their elected representatives in the Legislature” would not have been included in the decision.
So it looks like to me that there may be dicta regarding Prop. 22 in the case, but in its final analysis, the Court made no ruling on whether Prop 22 (now Fam. Code 308.5-limiting marriage between a man and a woman) applies to in state marriages.
In fact, in my opinion, the Court of Appeal ruling holds the the opposite because if Prop 22 applied to in-state marriages, then the marriage ban could only be undone by initiative and not the Legislature.
The Court of Appeal did not make such a finding and therefore your statement that “Prop 22 won at the appellate level”, to me appears to be incorrect as a matter of law.