Leave a Comment Sagesse
Attorney General Jerry Brown won’t defend Prop 8. What will Steve Cooley do?
August 6, 2010
By Eden James
Jerry Brown may be an excellent Attorney General on marriage equality, but he will be replaced by a new AG after the November election, as he’s now running for Governor. Given the Prop 8 legal process, the stakes in the AG race in California are quite high, as Equality California has done a good job highlighting today and this week.
Simply put, if Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley — a Republican running against San Francisco DA Kamala Harris — becomes Attorney General, it could have very ominous consequences for our side in the Prop 8 case. More on that in future posts.
For now, check out what Cooley just said in a statement in response to current AG Jerry Brown’s motion opposing the stay:
“Barring a law that is unconstitutional on its face, the proper role of an Attorney General is to enforce and defend the will of the People as manifested through the initiative or legislative process. The will of the People should be respected and not overturned easily or lightly. Today’s decision by a federal judge overturning Proposition 8 should be appealed and tested at a higher level of our legal system. The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 by a 6 to 1 vote and declared it to be constitutional. Likewise, if the voters had approved an initiative legalizing same-sex marriage and a federal judge had ruled against it, I would also support an appeal of that decision.”
In an email exchange, I asked Tobias Wolff, University of Pennsylvania Law School Professor, if he could provide some insight to Cooley’s statement on-the-record. If you’re not familiar with Wolff’s relationship to Prop 8, he represented a coalition of civil rights organizations in the first round of litigation over the initiative — including the NAACP Inc. Fund, MALDEF, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the Equal Justice Society, and the California NAACP — filing a petition and an amicus brief before the California Supreme Court.
Here’s what Wolff had to say about Cooley’s statement:
In his statement about the proposed stay of Judge Walker’s ruling, Steve Cooley, the Republican candidate for California AG, is misrepresenting the earlier holding of the California Supreme Court when he says that the court “upheld Proposition 8 by a 6 to 1 vote and declared it to be constitutional.”
In that first round of legal challenges to Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of Prop 8 under any provision of the U.S. Constitution. It was asked to decide only one question — whether state law permits a ballot initiative to be used in putting the fundamental rights of a protected minority up for popular vote. Appallingly, the California Supreme Court said that such a use of the ballot was no problem. But that had nothing to do with any of the constitutional issues that Judge Walker ruled on this week.
Either Cooley does not understand the law or he is deliberately misleading people about its content. Neither speaks particularly well of someone running to be the State’s chief law enforcement officer.
Kamala Harris, in contrast, has a long track record of supporting marriage equality, and her understanding of the legal and constitutional issues has always been sharp.
Filed under: Right-wing,Trial analysis
88 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ronnie | August 6, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Cooley is not cool….JMHGO…..<3…Ronnie
2.
AndrewPDX | August 6, 2010 at 1:47 pm
subscribin'
3.
AndrewPDX | August 6, 2010 at 1:53 pm
Dude…
"Barring a law that is unconstitutional on its face, the proper role of an Attorney General is to enforce and defend the will of the People as manifested through the initiative or legislative process. "
UMM…. NEWS FLASH MR. COOLEY: Proposition 8 IS Unconstitutional on its face, buttocks, feet, and nostrils!
The AG did EXACTLY what you said they are supposed to do.
Love,
Andrew
4.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 6, 2010 at 1:54 pm
subbing
5.
Anonygrl | August 6, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Hey guys!
Just broke my budget completely and bought my ticket for Washington DC for August 15th.
6.
Anonygrl | August 6, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Too true!
He is obviously looking for NOM support for his campaign. I hope it backfires in his face.
7.
AndrewPDX | August 6, 2010 at 2:03 pm
kewl… wish I could do that… please wave an American flag for me, eh?
Love,
Andrew
8.
Sagesse | August 6, 2010 at 2:05 pm
Going along for the ride.
9.
Mark M | August 6, 2010 at 2:08 pm
I am SO jealous!!!
Raise some hell for me too!!
Hugs
Mark
10.
Anonygrl | August 6, 2010 at 2:13 pm
You can all look for me in pictures. I will be the one with the very large bright pink sunhat.
11.
Mark M | August 6, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I dearly love this song..and this version in particular.
Defying Gravity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wSXLtDIC-c
12.
Anonygrl | August 6, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I concur, sir!
13.
Linda | August 6, 2010 at 2:20 pm
It's bad enough to have NOMbies erroniously claiming that the State Supreme Court 'upheld' prop 8; but a candidate for State Attorney General??? Please, please, please tell me that he will not get away with that! Surely SOMEBODY will call him–very publicly–on that deliberate mis-statement.
14.
Bolt | August 6, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Didn't Walker refute his argument? To paraphrase: "fundamental rights are not subject to a vote." This notion is backed up with legal precedent. What legal precedent, and facts, will this potential AG use to defend proposition 8?
Prop 8 is indefensible, and we can't let this republican slob win.
15.
AndrewPDX | August 6, 2010 at 2:28 pm
I also like this one:
[youtube
16.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 6, 2010 at 2:31 pm
We will be looking for you. Apparently the Equality Rides page isn't going to go anywhere in time for the final stop on the hate tour. The only organizers are here in the local area. Was hoping to have some from each area of the country. Oh, well. We can keep trying. Maybe we will have enough to make a trip to DC when SCOTUS hands down the ruling on this.
17.
Chris | August 6, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Interesting little article in the NYTimes about how Judge Walker is a flaming left-winger with a radical liberal agenda
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us/06walker.htm…
18.
HunterR. | August 6, 2010 at 2:37 pm
Don't know if you seen this. Very Funny. I need a good laugh!
http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/08/06/jon-s…
19.
Steve | August 6, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Indeed a complete lie. The Cal. SC didn' really touch any constitutional questions. Especially not on the federal level. And on a state level it wasn't primarily about the equal protection clause. As said in the post it was mostly about the ballot process itself. It was still an appalling decision.
20.
Kathleen | August 6, 2010 at 2:52 pm
Another Gleek checking in.
21.
Kathleen | August 6, 2010 at 2:54 pm
I saw this statement of Cooley's earlier today and had the exact same reaction. Either he really is that out of touch with the law or he's intentionally misrepresenting the judicial history. Either way, this seems to make him woefully unsuited to be AG.
22.
Anonygrl | August 6, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Just a quick scene today… but a little bit of info first. I am putting all the scenes together, and tying them to each other with voiceover explanations of the case, of the tour, and so on… hopefully they are amusing too, and you will see them all later. With that in mind, I will give you just the tail end of a voiceover that leads into tonight's scene of
On the NOM bus – scene whatever number, I have lost track.
(over the voice over, we see shots of the motions, highlighting the Governor's name, and the Attorney General, and that they are filing to let California proceed immediately with same sex marriage)
Voiceover: …and immediately after his ruling, Judge Walker issued a stay, which he required the interested parties to address in two days, after which he would make a ruling about extending it, possibly till the appeals. NOM was rather distressed to find that every single DEFENDANT named in the suit filed motions to have the stay lifted immediately, basically giving the plaintiffs the whole ball of wax in one fell swoop.
(Brian, Maggie and Louis sit in separate corners of the bus. Maggie still only has one shoe, hair mussed, mud covered… and she still carries the tree branch. The tazer sits on the little table. Louis looks at it forlornly, then tries to sneak in to pick it up, but cringes back as Maggie swings wildly at him with the branch.
Brian is looking at the computer screen.)
Brian: Hey! Fox News did a poll! (Maggie and Louis perk up and look at him) Currently it stands at 71% for "Yes Prop 8… (his face falls, and his voice gets very flat) violates the constitution…"
(Maggie gets up, limps over to him and smacks him with the tree branch, then stomps back and sits again. They all stare blankly at the walls.)
Fade to black
23.
AndrewPDX | August 6, 2010 at 3:45 pm
LOL… seriously, I cannot wait for you to publish this story. It is just soooo funny. Thanks!
Love,
Andrew
24.
JonT | August 6, 2010 at 4:01 pm
My inbox is drunk, and needs some coffee.
25.
JonT | August 6, 2010 at 4:06 pm
'The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 by a 6 to 1 vote and declared it to be constitutional.'
Uhm, not an expert, but what they decided was that the way it was put on the ballot and worded was constitutional. That case had absolutely nothing to do with the constitutionality of the proposition itself…?
Please, no more dumbasses and liars in office.
26.
Dpeck | August 6, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Woo HOO! I envy you, Anongrl. And you WORK that sunhat, girl! Make us proud!
27.
JonT | August 6, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Oh yeah!
Lovin it!
28.
Dpeck | August 6, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Getting back to the NOM #FAIL tour, it is now early Saturday morning in Atlanta. I have high hopes that in a few hours the good people of Atlanta will show NOM that their message of irrational bigotry is not welcome. Go get 'em, Atlanta!! Go get 'em, NOMtrackers!
29.
Lynn E | August 6, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Has there been any public comment from members of the California Supreme Court on Judge Walker's decision? For example the Justice that used her fingers to put quotes in the air around the word "marriage." The image of her asking if it was just the lack of the "word marriage" that concerned us is burned into my memory. It was the single most condescending line of questioning that I have ever seen a Judge undertake.
30.
Ronnie | August 6, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Total Gleek….. ; )
<3…Ronnie
31.
Mark M | August 6, 2010 at 4:35 pm
LOL
I love it!!
32.
Ann S. | August 6, 2010 at 4:36 pm
scribin'
33.
Ronnie | August 6, 2010 at 4:40 pm
(Maggie gets up, limps over to him and smacks him with the tree branch, then stomps back and sits again. They all stare blankly at the walls.)
rofl……<3…Ronnie
34.
Ķĭŗîļĺę& | August 6, 2010 at 7:58 pm
It's not fair. I live in Russia, I can't subscribe to everything first!
Man gotta sleep sometimes…
35.
Ķĭŗîļĺę& | August 6, 2010 at 8:36 pm
And this is the man that lawfully represents LA?
And this is the man that is running for California AG?
He's either unbelievably bigoted, or simply incompetent!
Actually, it could very well be both!
God bless America!
Why do I even want to live in this country?
Oh, that's right — I have a fiancé there (hi, Felyx)!
Eyes on the prise!
And keep on fighting the good fight!
– ♂K♥F♂
36.
fern | August 6, 2010 at 9:08 pm
I remember a threat made to the casc that they would not be re-elected if the decision went against the prop8 proponents…
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed motions on Friday calling for resumption of same-sex weddings in the state. Judge Vaughn R. Walker of Federal District Court this week overturned Proposition 8, California’s voter-approved same-sex marriage ban. Judge Walker ruled the ban violates federal equal protections and due process laws. But he agreed to block same-sex marriages from immediately resuming until he can consider arguments on whether to keep the ban in effect while its supporters take their appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Resuming same-sex marriages “is consistent with California’s long history of treating all people and their relationships with equal dignity and respect,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said in his legal filing. "
37.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 6, 2010 at 10:26 pm
Well, that means we have to get rid of about 3/4 of Congress.
38.
Dave in ME | August 6, 2010 at 10:28 pm
MEE TOO!
39.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 6, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Standing O! And especially in this scene, I can see Kathy Bates as Maggie. And I know a young man here in my area who would be a great director and cameraman. I have worked with him. Want me to call him about this? I'm sure that we could get enough Visa Cards and MasterCards to cover it.
40.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 6, 2010 at 10:35 pm
A lot of it depends on how Dr. Alveda is viewed in Atlanta. Her uncle is a hero, but we don't know how she is seen. And she is speaking at NOM's little infection today.
41.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 6, 2010 at 10:39 pm
And you have managed to turn me into a Gleek! When does the next season start? I want to see Glee do the Time Warp!
42.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 6, 2010 at 11:40 pm
Oh, this is fabulous!
I do some creative writing myself. A few years ago, a friend of mine gave me a sweatshirt that reads, "Careful, Or You'll End Up In My Novel."
Anonygrl, you may borrow it at any time!
43.
Anonygrl | August 6, 2010 at 11:56 pm
Thanks! I also NaNo…. that is, I participate in National Novel Writing Month (you can find more about it at NaNoWriMo.org), the idea of which is to write a 50,000 word novel in the month of November. Also, a local writing group holds write-ins year round, where we get together, sit around in some coffee shop or bagel place with our laptops and chat and write for several hours at a go. There's one planned for August 21. I may just go and finish this thing off then, if I haven't finished it before that.
44.
Anonygrl | August 6, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Oops.. the above was @ Paul in Minneapolis
45.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 12:00 am
Hmmmm… interesting….
Let me finish it first, and see if it is worth bothering with. And if it is something that could be gotten away with LEGALLY (the line between parody and libel is a tricky thing).
46.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 12:00 am
Anybody out there know how to make military boot camp coffee? That's what it will take to straighten my email inbox up.
47.
Bolt | August 7, 2010 at 12:05 am
No, no word, but Carol Corrigan, the lesbian justice who wrote the dissent in the 2008 marriage case, can get married now.
48.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 12:16 am
Thanks Anonygrl! Between you and fiona, I have gotten quite a few good tips for my own writing. And David Kimble has also had several good tips. Speaking of David Kimble, where is he? I haven't seen him on here in a while. BE back shortly. I'm going to FB and email to see how he is.
49.
Don in Texas | August 7, 2010 at 12:26 am
Judge Walker quoted Justice Robert Jackson who wrote for the Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U.S. 624 (1943):
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."
50.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 12:35 am
That works for me. And if you don't catch me here, you can catch me on FB. Plus I will PM you with my email.
BTW, thanks again for the link to NaNo! Look for me this year.
51.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 7, 2010 at 12:53 am
Thanks for the info! I've actually written two short novels, but they're not publishable. The villian is an evil ex-boss of mine; she'd sue me for all I'm worth if she ever got ahold of either one! (But my co-workers sure enjoyed them….)
Still, it was really fun (and therapeutic) to get her into all kinds of situations of her own making where she ended up screwing herself over — very much like real life. It was even better than the board game based on her….
52.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 7, 2010 at 1:02 am
OMG — a NOM board game! We could make a fortune!
53.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 1:09 am
True! We'll make it a marketing tie in with the movie.
I draw the line at figurines, though.
54.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 1:11 am
If only "we the people" would stop VOTING THE DUMBASSES IN…
argh. Just argh.
55.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 7, 2010 at 1:13 am
We only need figurines for game pieces. They can be plastic and have a hack paint job.
I want the Maggie game piece in that magenta dress!
56.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 1:17 am
Excellent! NaNo is not about GOOD writing (although that happens too) but just WRITING…. getting off your duff and putting pen to paper is what it encourages. I've done it three times now, and completed it twice. It is a TON of fun, and I have one rather goofy novel that I like a lot and I am sure no publisher would know what to do with that is pretty much finished except for maybe 1/2 a chapter and some editing. I also have a second one, a sword and sorcery thing that is over 50,000 words long, but probably only about 1/3 finished.
57.
Anonygrl | August 7, 2010 at 1:19 am
Oh sure, that is ok. I was thinking of collectable ones…
58.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 7, 2010 at 1:23 am
Probably not much of a market for NOM collectables. Who would want Maggie on their mantel? Best to keep her locked up in the game box when not in use; she causes too much chaos when allowed to run around loose.
59.
fiona64 | August 7, 2010 at 1:35 am
My husband keeps threatening to get that shirt for me.
My Author Website, in case anyone is interested. Four books published, one in edits, and one WIP.
Love,
Fiona
60.
fiona64 | August 7, 2010 at 1:37 am
We need to act this out with dolls, a la "Robot Chicken."
I'm just sayin' …
Love,
Fiona
61.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 1:49 am
We need to find a metallurgist also. Need to find a way to make lead boxes for those figurines that won't weigh too much. And the boxes have to be lockable. Can't have them getting out unattended, can we?
62.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 7, 2010 at 2:02 am
No; they should be subject to the leash law!
63.
Franck | August 7, 2010 at 2:04 am
"Why do I even want to live in this country?
Oh, that’s right — I have a fiancé there"
Funny, that's been my standard answer for all those people who asked me "Why the U.S.? Why not Canada or one of the nordic country?"
– Franck P. Rabeson
Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1142 days, as of today.
64.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 7, 2010 at 2:38 am
Oh, he should get it for you! It's always fun to wear in public!
65.
SJB | August 7, 2010 at 2:46 am
I have been practicing law for 23 years. I am no fan of Steve Cooley. However, his comment is in fact legally correct. The Attorney General (AG) has no business creating law. That belongs to the legislative branch of the government. AG is a member of the executive branch, whose only function is to execute the law. Prop.8, is the will of the voters and therefore a law that the AG has to enforce unless or until it's deemed to be unconstitutional. This is something that the USSC will eventually have to decide.
Mr. Tobias's statement as to why Mr. Cooley's interpretation of the CA Supreme Court's ruling has nothing to do with constitutional issues is blatantly false and a cheap play on words. Mr. Tobias states the only issue in that case was "whether state law permits a ballot initiative to be used in putting the fundamental rights of a protected minority up for popular vote." The "fundamental rights" of any group stem from the US constitution, therefore it did deal with the constitutionality of being able to vote on fundamental rights that are derived from our constitution such as Civil Rights.
On another note: I have a question for Mr. Cooley. If that's his position on Prop.8 why is it that he doesn't follow the will of the people in terms of the "Three Strikes Law"? Isn't it the job of the District Attorney of L.A .County to follow the will of the people?
66.
Alan E. | August 7, 2010 at 2:53 am
I somehow missed this one.
67.
Ķĭŗîļĺę& | August 7, 2010 at 3:03 am
This link was posted by Alan E. on July 29 on P8TT in “Two amazing videos from St. Paul + analysis” thread, but Felyx, Papa Foma and I just got to watch this video, and we couldn't stop laughing our asses off, especially when Scott Lively was cornered with a particular question!
Thank you, Alan!
– ♂K♥F♂
68.
AndrewPDX | August 7, 2010 at 3:11 am
Hm… NOM board game… I'm trying to decide which way to win sounds better: amass the most money, or amass the most sheeple?
Love,
Andrew
69.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 3:14 am
And isn't it funny how quick he was to say, "I'm not gay!" in answer to a question that did not even mention HIS sexual orientation, but was merely an expression of the truism about attacking that which you most hate in yourself. How long before Mr. Lively is caught with his pants down with some RentBoy?
70.
Paul in Minneapolis | August 7, 2010 at 3:41 am
I'm thinkin' … destroy the most marriages!
71.
Richard A. Walter (s | August 7, 2010 at 4:19 am
First one to have a nervous, emotional, or mental breakdown?
72.
Chuck in Antioch | August 7, 2010 at 4:22 am
Regarding the courts overturning the 'will of the people', has anyone heard of the 1964 California Proposition 14? An informed Californian brought it up on the editorial page of a Bay area newspaper yesterday. That proposition was placed on the 1964 ballot to invalidate the Rumford Fair Housing Act passed in 1963. The act provided that landlords and property owners could not deny people housing because of ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, physical handicap, or familial status. Many property owners disagreed with this act. A petition to add an amendment to the California State Constitution to overturn the provisions of the Rumford Fair Housing Act and allow discrimination to prevail was started soon after the act became law. The petition required 480,000 signatures to be placed on the 1964 ballot. It garnered over one million signatures. The proposition passed by a 65% majority in the California 1964 elections. The same year Democrat Lynden Johnson won the Presidency by a landslide. Soon after the proposition passed, the federal government cut off housing funds to California. The constitutionality of the messure was challenged soon after it passed and was supported by Gov. Edmund G. Brown (Jerry's father). In 1966, the California State Supreme Court held that the proposition was unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the California Constitution. Appeals went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and in 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court found the proposition unconstitutional for violating the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So, you see, the will of the people means nothing when a Proposition is deemed unconstitutional. Bottom line is that rights of a minority should never be voted on by the majority and that is why the courts are there to protect us from such violations.
73.
Ann S. | August 7, 2010 at 5:02 am
Well, Brown and Schwarzenegger are both termed out of their current positions. Jerry Brown is running for governor, Schwarzenegger isn't running for anything (yet). So, no re-election worries, but I imagine it will be a factor of some sort in Jerry Brown's campaign for governor.
74.
Ann S. | August 7, 2010 at 5:08 am
@Chuck, I saw that letter, too. Thanks for bringing that up. Excellent point.
75.
couragecampaign | August 7, 2010 at 5:09 am
Chuck:
Thanks for posting this. I just used this in a radio interview. Would anyone who now complains about "judicial activism" challenge the courts' will form 1964?
We have a similar situation with California's Prop. 187 which passed in 1994 59-41. It was overturned by the federal appellate court. It would have denied all state services to undocumented immigrants.
As Ted Olson says, that's why we have a constitution and that's why we have courts.
Rick.
76.
Lynn E | August 7, 2010 at 6:16 am
My understanding of our court system was that the California Supreme Court interprets the California Constitution, while the Federal Judiciary deal with questions of the US Code and US Constitution. The CA Supremes dealt with the question of constitutionality under their jurisdiction (i.e. the California Constitution). The California Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the US Constitution. Isn't this correct?
77.
Ann S. | August 7, 2010 at 6:20 am
@Lynn, the question of which court has jurisdiction is actually more complex than that, and beyond my ability to explain here (or at all, for that matter). But a ruling by the CA Supreme Court on a matter solely of CA law is not appealable. The 2008 marriage decisions that allowed us to have marriage equality in CA for a few months that year was not appealable because it was argued and decided only on the basis of the CA constitution. (Prop 8 then amended that constitution.)
If the CA Supreme Court rules on a case that involves the US Constitution, it is appealable.
Hope that helps.
78.
Chuck in Antioch | August 7, 2010 at 6:56 am
You're welcome Rick.
I think that 1964 proposition is a good case to shoot Maggie Gallagher's claim down about the people's right to vote other people's rights away but I'm sure she wouldn't see it that way. She seems like the type who goes through life wearing blinders and only sees what she wants to see. She must be a very sad person with nothing better to do than to push her agenda of hate and lies. Is she even married? If she is, I wonder what her husband thinks about her. I would bet he's glad she's out of the house and out of his hair.
79.
Mark M | August 7, 2010 at 7:53 am
That would be PERFECT!!!
80.
JonT | August 7, 2010 at 7:54 am
@Andrew: 'I’m trying to decide which way to win sounds better: …'
Ahem. Perhaps the only way to win, is not to play.
81.
the lone ranger | August 7, 2010 at 8:22 am
Although the US Supreme Court will likely eventually decide this issue, as of right now, this moment in time, Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, according to a Federal judge. Steve Cooley is wrong… until Judge Walker's ruling is overturned (and I don't think it will be… he was very thorough), Prop 8 is and will remain unconstitutional relative to the U.S. Constitution. CA (and my home state of AZ) can make all the crazy laws it wants, but they can't run counter to the U.S. Constitution.
82. Online games&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 8:22 am
Get it…
[...]Here is another great site[...]…
83. Tegaderm&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 2:10 pm
tegaderm film dressings…
[...]I am honestly sugesting a visit to the bellow site because it will only ake a second and its worth it![...]…
84. free website&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Catch it…
[...]Cool website[...]…
85. Nikon D7000 test&hellip | May 11, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Hot Sun…
[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]…
86. forex&hellip | July 5, 2011 at 6:14 pm
worlwide currencies…
[...]we link below to sites that are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look[...]…
87. Seattle Search Engine Opt&hellip | November 14, 2011 at 8:14 am
Seattle Search Engine Optimization…
[...]the time to read or visit the content or sites we have linked to below the[...]…
88. jobs in abbeville ga&hellip | November 29, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Find Jobs In…
Please say yes to the following comment to make certain that I may well link my site to the one you have becuase you have amazing website content on your blog…
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.