I found it to be very ironic that the news that Governor’s Schwarzenegger’s pick to replace retiring California Supreme Court Justice Ron George had officiated over a same sex marriage was tucked in a Los Angeles Times story (by Maura Dolan) with the innocuous headline, Chief Justice 
Nominee Avoids Hot-Button Issues. Appellate Court Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye (pictured, right) actually, and probably unwittingly, has plowed robes-first into what a great many would consider to be California’s most high-profile “hot button issue” – gay marriage.
Californians are very polarized on this issue, which has been the subject of a couple of high-profile statewide votes. In a split decision, the very court to which Cantil-Sakauye has been nominated issued a 4-3 split decision, throwing out voter-approved Proposition 22 which placed a definition into statute of a marriage being between a man and a woman. Ron George, whom Cantil-Sakauye would be replacing, was a vote on the high court to overturn Proposition 22.
The voters came back and approved a ballot initiative, Proposition 8, to basically over-rule the Supreme Court an maintain the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Once it passed, advocates for same sex marriage took that measure to court, where a judge is expected any day to rule as to whether Prop. 8 violates the federal constitution. It is presumed that no matter how the lower court rules, this matter will ultimately end up before the United States Supreme Court (where it is likely Justice Anthony Kennedy will decide the matter).
**There is more – click the link**
July 27th, 2010 at 12:00 am
If abortion is legal, does that mean is the right thing to do?
If it was legal for government to take over private industries, does that mean it is the right thing to do?
The issue of a judge nominee suddenly hiding previouisly posted stand on gay marriage issues should be called out as Jon has done. He has stated the facts that the people have voted marriage to be between one man and one woman. We do not want a judge who will try to circumvent that.
July 27th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Just because the majority passes a law does not mean it is a just law. We passed housing discrimination in 1964, does that mean it should of stayed as law?
Most people probably fell asleep about the topic of tyranny of the majority and individual rights.
Individual rights should never be held to a public vote because people would never agree to them. I wonder if interracial marriage would still be banned if we didn’t have these laws thrown out?
July 27th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Bob Evans and Matt Munson:
Well said, good sirs!
Worrying about gay marriage when the state is broke and legislators are throwing more gun control laws around tells you what the CA Rep. party’s focus is – and it ain’t freedom or parsimony.
Republicans keep wondering why they don’t get elected to higher office and then have to pull a Whitiman or Schwarzenegger or Poizner outta the hat because their farm leagues can’t propagate upward or win in large metro areas.
And yes, a judge should indeed worry about if the voters are trying to restrict rights. We DO want a judge that will stop mob rule.
Bill Wiese
San Jose CA
July 27th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Ah, just as I always suspected, Jon, you are a one issue political animal. I guess you have forgotton that Ronald Reagan signed the first in the nation law legalizing abortion and that he once said “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.” Sadly, many of your readers are also stuck on 20 percent and thus the Republican Party sinks further into oblivion.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Tempest in a tea cup. Maybe “that part of the portfolio for a judge is elective,” however the portfolio itself remains public. She still occupies a public role performing a public function, and it may very well be that she considered performing such rights to be part of her job portfolio. On the whole, judges still try and separate their views from the law. In turn, a surgeon may not choose to perform an abortion, but a surgeon is (still, thankfully) not a public employee.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Thanks for posting this important information. I will be spreading this to all my friends.
Why would she officiate a wedding when the legality was sure to come up before the Supreme Court?
July 28th, 2010 at 12:00 am
As usual Flash Report Junkies take the bait….your stuck on social issues while your pocketbooks get leener and leener.
It is fiscal policy not social issues….the dollar affects libs as well as RINOS as much as the young as the old….a broad important issue….
Social issues are a loser. plain and simple….
The only way Republicans will ever be taken seriously in California is when you get your hands dirty down in the barrios, the hood, blue collar neighborhoods to find policy possibilies to improve people’s lives….
In the meantime flap your gums, whine and moan…..and prepare to lose repeatedly.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Robert hates FR so much…but he keeps coming back for more.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:00 am
A judge follows the law you disagree – bad judge. A judge does not follow a law which you agree – bad judge.
How about a judge just follows the law until it is overturned or a stay is issued?
Now you want a judge to determine which laws to follow?
Are secretly a liberal?
July 28th, 2010 at 12:00 am
No, it doesn’t speak volumes. The analogy is so flawed as to be useless.
I oppose abortion becaues I see it as the unjustifiable taking of another human life – a grievous moral wrong.
I oppose same-sex marriage because I see it as poor public policy to subsidize relationships that inherently fall outside the legitimate interest in having couples stay together to raise the children they have created.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Nick, I take it that it is unjustifiable to take another human life, thus you are against the death penalty and war?
“… legitmate interest…raise the children they created.” So, people who do have children should not get the benefits of marriage? Once children are raised, they should not get the benefits of marriage?
No, sir your analogy is flawed.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:00 am
John Shewmaker, I take it that you’re stupid and unacquainted with both logic and English grammar.
That I refer to an unjustifiable taking means that some takings are justifiable. The death penalty for murder is among those. So are deaths in a just war.
And the pitiful “gotcha” attempts about the purpose of marriage serve you no better. Apparently the word “inherently” is too difficult for you to comprehend. Of course, since on your own blog you can’t tell the difference between “vile” (awful) and “vial” (a small container), lots of words are too difficult for you to comprehend.
You’re not worth my time to explain why it’s reasonable to not have the govermnent question the reproductive intentions of opposite-sex couples or test their fertility, and you wouldn’t understand it anyway.
BTW, I didn’t make any analogy. That’s another word you don’t understand.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Hit a hot button? When a person can’t explain a position they resort to name calling. The sign of weakness of the mind and thought.
If government has an interest in keeping couples together to raise children – why does the government allow divorce?
The government, at one time, claimed a “legitimate” interest in keeping couples of different races from marrying. Do you feel that was a “legitimate” interest?
At one time, any wrong “perceived” as against God and country resulted in the death penalty. Another example of “legitimate” public interest changing.
Sir, your moral foundation is sitting on shifitng sand, not on bedrock.
Human life is sacred or it is not sacred. To use words to fineline a difference is double speak.
One final question. If it is not in the government interest to determine child bearing ability in order to get the “marriage” benefit, why does it make any difference when related to the sex of the couple?
What is the “government” interest and who makes that determination?
July 28th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Flash Report Junkies come unglued…pant over social issues while they are taxed like urban serfs…..READ ALL ABOUT IT….
I like Flash Report…..but it attracts lots of budding RINOS, opportunists, egomaniac nonsensical article writers, political hacks as well as naive donors to the bloated California Republican Party….
July 28th, 2010 at 12:00 am
I’ll open this to the whole FR readership: Shall I respond to Mike Spence’s stalker?
July 29th, 2010 at 12:00 am
What does Spence have to do with this, except for his responsibility for the state of the Republican Party in California.
As long as he continues to blog and present himself as a moral and ethical person, I will continue to point out his complete hypocrisy on issues and his lack of character as verified by the investigation into his conduct as a member of the school board which cost his district tens of thousands of dollars. Which, by the way, determined he had engaged in a pattern of harassing, intimidating, and demeaning behaviour towards staff and faculty in the district over a number of years.