That a passing majority on the Supreme Court pretends otherwise is merely a practical hindrance
You have completely lost your intellectual integrity now. You can't be intellectually honest and one minute say that a legislature shouldn't be passing an unconstitutional law (that's pro-same-sex marriage) and then the next minute say that it's okay for a legislature to pass an unconstitutional law that's anti-abortion because the Supreme Court may overturn it. Wasn't that the point in California? That the California Supreme Court would overturn what had been an unconstitutional law? In fact the California case is stronger because there is an actual lower court deicsion that is currently the law. whereas with abortion those laws are unconstitutional. By your line of reasoning the courts aren't the arbiter of what is constitutional, but you are.
It's improtant to point out that Supreme Court precedents are what they are. They are not what they might be with a new Justice on it. Or even what they might be with a new justice that has been confirmed. Certainly not what they might be with a justice that has not been nominated, much kess confirmed. The Supreme Court came to this exact conclusion in Agostini v. Felton regarding the establishment clause.
I happen to be somewhet of an expert on the Establishment Clause, having published several articles relating to the Establishment Clause and education. The Lemon Clause is hardly any of the things you mentioned. Although it is muh maligned and Justice Scalia once compared it to a ghoul in a late night horror film. It is, however, the law. The only adjustment to the Lemon test has been to fold the "excessive entanglement" prong into the "effect" prong. That does NOT mean that an excessive entanglement (between church and state) would be constitutional. It means that such an analysis is done under the effect prong.
There is absolutely no intellectual integrity in the position that a legislator who "disagrees" with Supreme Court precedent relating to the Establishment Clause are within their rights to pass a law that contradicts. Furthermore you say that you don't think the legislators believd it was constitutional. But it's right in the statute that it was their bleif that the prior referendum was unconstitutional and that having been found unconstitutional by the lower court and three other state supreme courts they anticipated the California Supreme Court to find the referendum unconstitutional. Such a position has much more intellectual honesty than saying that if some possible Supreme Court Justice is confirmed that the interpretation of the Establishment clause will change.
And how can you say that you think that the court did not believe that the initiative was unconstitutional. There is a provision in the California constitution that applies to rights that it applied. Just be honest and say you don't agree with the position. But the fact that you don't agree with a position does not make it wrong.
no subject
You have completely lost your intellectual integrity now. You can't be intellectually honest and one minute say that a legislature shouldn't be passing an unconstitutional law (that's pro-same-sex marriage) and then the next minute say that it's okay for a legislature to pass an unconstitutional law that's anti-abortion because the Supreme Court may overturn it. Wasn't that the point in California? That the California Supreme Court would overturn what had been an unconstitutional law? In fact the California case is stronger because there is an actual lower court deicsion that is currently the law. whereas with abortion those laws are unconstitutional. By your line of reasoning the courts aren't the arbiter of what is constitutional, but you are.
It's improtant to point out that Supreme Court precedents are what they are. They are not what they might be with a new Justice on it. Or even what they might be with a new justice that has been confirmed. Certainly not what they might be with a justice that has not been nominated, much kess confirmed. The Supreme Court came to this exact conclusion in Agostini v. Felton regarding the establishment clause.
I happen to be somewhet of an expert on the Establishment Clause, having published several articles relating to the Establishment Clause and education. The Lemon Clause is hardly any of the things you mentioned. Although it is muh maligned and Justice Scalia once compared it to a ghoul in a late night horror film. It is, however, the law. The only adjustment to the Lemon test has been to fold the "excessive entanglement" prong into the "effect" prong. That does NOT mean that an excessive entanglement (between church and state) would be constitutional. It means that such an analysis is done under the effect prong.
There is absolutely no intellectual integrity in the position that a legislator who "disagrees" with Supreme Court precedent relating to the Establishment Clause are within their rights to pass a law that contradicts. Furthermore you say that you don't think the legislators believd it was constitutional. But it's right in the statute that it was their bleif that the prior referendum was unconstitutional and that having been found unconstitutional by the lower court and three other state supreme courts they anticipated the California Supreme Court to find the referendum unconstitutional. Such a position has much more intellectual honesty than saying that if some possible Supreme Court Justice is confirmed that the interpretation of the Establishment clause will change.
And how can you say that you think that the court did not believe that the initiative was unconstitutional. There is a provision in the California constitution that applies to rights that it applied. Just be honest and say you don't agree with the position. But the fact that you don't agree with a position does not make it wrong.