Fucking shitheels.
Natter 63: Life after PuppyCam
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
GODDAMNIT.
I'm so relieved for the protection for everyone who got married last year, but GODDAMNIT. (And I'm so deeply glad I'm not at work today; there's been occasional bristly unpleasantness, and right now I know I've got one co-worker quietly heartsore and one quietly content and triumphant, and I don't think my post-flu stomach could tolerate it).
Ugh.
Sorry about CA being wrong.
Legally, I'm not sure what they could do really. It's the majority of voters that fucked it up.
I don't know - it seems like they could have said, regardless of the majority, fundamental rights are protected and can't be voted away. I don't know - I'm unfamiliar with the case, so I'm just guessing.
Well, then it shouldn't have been on the ballot in the first place. But, admittedly, I don't know the process for that. Do other Californians who have been here longer know if there was a challenge pre-ballot? I assumed there was.
It seems to me that the whole CA proposition system shows why representative democracy is better than straight-up democracy.
A challenge to the prop before the election might have been dismissed because of concerns for ripeness -- it's a complicated doctrine but generally courts can decline to hear cases where the claimed harm has not yet and may never come to pass.
And in terms of ruling on principle. Aside from whatever legal doctrines may come into play, California has a provision where judges have to be confirmed by being reelected occasionally. The possibility of being Elizabeth Rose Birded has to cross their minds when making rulings.