Sponsored Content

« Rubio Takes To Senate Floor To Claim He's Still A Conservative | Main | George Zimmerman Trial Thread »
June 26, 2013

The Supremely Anti-Democratic Holding on Prop 8

I was intrigued by AllahPundit's characterization of the holding:

Forget the gay-marriage stuff for a second and focus on the process. Am I right in understanding that the Court’s now essentially held that if the people of a state pass a popular referendum on whatever subject and then that referendum is challenged and struck down at the trial-court level, they have no right to appeal? They get one bite at the apple and then, if the executive decides he doesn’t like the referendum enough to choose to appeal it himself, there’s nothing a single member of the public can do to ask an appellate court to reconsider the lower court’s decision — even though many millions of voters voted directly to enact the law? That seems … odd.

Could this be the case? Has the Supreme Court ruled that citizens have no rights vis a vis the permanent political class when that class chooses to ignore their popular (I mean that in the neutral, technical sense) intitiatives and referendums?

Consider the entire point of the initiative and referendum mechanism: It exists as a safety valve by which the citizenry can bypass or overrule the permanent political class if the permanent political class refuses to accede to actual popular will. (And there I meant popular in the non-neutral sense.)

In the matter of Prop 8, the citizens passed an amendment. The permanent political class of the government did not like this amendment, and ignored it. That class refused to make the case in favor of the amendment when another member of the permanent political class, a federal district judge, struck it down as unconstitutional. Now the proponents of the amendment come forward before other members of the permanent political class to argue that, because no other members of the permanent political class are willing to argue in favor of the constitutionality of an amendment the citizens passed, and this latest tribunal of the permanent political class -- the Supreme Court -- tells them no, only members of the permanent political class are authorized to plead on behalf a a citizen-promulgated amendment.

The dissent* doesn't speak of a permanent political class per se, but he does speak of the Court's championing of elected officials versus citizen petitioners:

The Court’s reasoning does not take into account the fundamental principles or the practical dynamics of the initiative system in California, which uses this mechanism to control and to bypass public officials—the same officials who would not defend the initiative, an injury the Court now leaves unremedied. The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.

What an outrageous situation! The whole point of the initiative system is to bypass the elected representatives and pass the sorts of laws the permanent political class does not like but the actual citizens do, and the Supreme Court has effectively ruled this system to be a nullity -- because the exact same permanent political class the citizens sought to bypass can render any initiative inoperative by refusing to recognize it and by refusing to defend it in court.

The permanent political class apparently has the power of veto over the citizenry -- no matter what state law may say about the initiative process or the rights of the proponents of an initiative to defend it in court, it is now, supposedly, the law of the land that the federal government invalidates such rights and claws them back in favor of the permanent political class' right to rule.

Extraordinary. An extraordinary claim for any American to make, let alone five in concert.

*Corrected: I said this was "Scalia's dissent." How wrong I was. He voted with the majority. Kennedy wrote this dissent, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor, who, if I had to guess, wanted to rule on the actual law in order to say gay marriage was required under the Constitution.

Now that I see that, I wonder what's going on here. I wonder if the majority opinion isn't a bit of gamesmanship written in order to preclude a different majority from ruling that gay marriage is the law of the entire country if the decision were to reach the merits.

On the "Permanent Political Class:" Some may object that there is no permanent political class -- we hold elections. Some representatives are beaten, others take the office. Judges retire or die and are replaced by other judges.

But that speaks to individuals. Individual representatives of the class are not permanent, as no human being is permanent. But the class itself endures and is eternal.

Or, perhaps, so it imagines.

digg this
posted by Ace at 02:57 PM

| Access Comments

Recent Comments
IrishEi: ">>> because he had people like John Solomon and Sa ..."

micky: "Jan Hook as Tammye Faye was hilarious in a torrent ..."

BignJames: " The stuff is dangerous. Deadly even. Posted by ..."

Daddy, why do muffin pans have 12 spaces instead of five?: "Tango hahahaha ..."

Rick67: "I will cut Macron slack for this. Partly because p ..."

IrishEi: " Just made some Tang...don't think I've had any si ..."

Sasquatch, the Original Trans-Wookie: "265 Speaking of, I don't know her name but the lad ..."

humphreyrobot : "Remember the Jesus lady on TV, she cried on live t ..."

BignJames: "They just wanted to be able to visit their loved o ..."

sven: "263 Posted by: Nightwatch at March 27, 2023 09:52 ..."

Nightwatch: "Anyone... LADYL's son. Status? ..."

Daddy, why do muffin pans have 12 spaces instead of five?: "This all started with the fight for GEY Marriage a ..."

Recent Entries

Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
Powered by
Movable Type 2.64