Home » Posts tagged "ruling"

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement on Supreme Court Proposition 8 Ruling

California Family Law Attorney Issues Statement on Supreme Court Proposition 8 Ruling











Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) June 2, 2009

California Family Law attorney Mary Ellen Waller says the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court on the validity of Proposition 8 is a dangerous ruling for all minorities. The following is a statement by Waller analyzing the decision:

The Court has handed the mob a loaded weapon that can too easily be used to pursue inappropriate discriminatory goals and agendas. The ruling undermines the judiciary’s authority to protect minority rights and it substantially alters the California Constitution as a document of independent force and effect.

In its ruling, the Court has altered the procedural process regarding Constitutional initiatives having to do with civil rights. They have done so by removing the procedural requirement that initiatives affecting only individual liberties go through the more rigorous, deliberative process known as Constitutional revision (as opposed to Constitutional amendment). The implications of this ruling have a far-reaching and chilling effect on state constitutional rights as this ruling has eased constraints on the ability of the majority interests in our State to discriminate. Indeed, it has been a hallmark of our State Constitution, our Federal Constitution, and the very fabric upon which our political and social systems in this nation were formed that we operate on a system of majority rule with protection for minority rights. Great and honorable steps against “tyranny of the majority” have been undertaken throughout our history, and sweeping policy attitudinal changes and reforms have been imposed to protect the rights of the minority in society.

This is why, for example, it is against the law to refuse to hire an individual because of their race or ethnic origin; why it is illegal to deny equal access to government based on a suspect classification (such as race, gender, religion, etc). These issues are very often hotly contested and debated, yet to our credit as a people very often we have been able to rise above our own individual prejudices and dislikes. We have enacted laws that are designed to protect the members of a minority group, members of, in Constitutional parlance, a “suspect class.” Race is generally considered to be the most easily recognizable example of a suspect classification, and there are indeed many others as well.

This assessment of the high Court’s “invitation to discriminate” falls far short of mere speculation or conjecture; a discriminatory pattern of behavior by the majority towards minorities is a well-documented reality throughout history. Let us recall that Nazi Germany started with German citizens being stripped of their rights for no reason other than their religion, Japanese-Americans of this country went from curfew to internment, women were not allowed to vote, and blacks were “separate”, “but equal,” a concept that is all too blatantly adopted by the Proposition 8 ruling. The Proposition 8 ruling opens the door for a majority of California voters to adopt future measures designed to gradually reduce or eliminate fundamental rights of vulnerable minorities. Click here to read more http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilyLawBlog.com

Mary Ellen Waller is a family law attorney licensed in California and New York. She is a shareholder of Feinberg & Waller, APC, a firm practicing exclusively in the area of family law with offices in Calabasas and Beverly Hills, California. The Daily Journal, the State of California’s legal newspaper, recently published an article by Waller entitled, “Whatever the Prop.8 Outcome, Some Families Will Be Stuck in Legal Limbo”. An in-depth analysis and report on the Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 can be found at http://www.TheCaliforniaFamilylawBlog.com

###





















Vocus©Copyright 1997-

, Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.
Vocus, PRWeb, and Publicity Wire are trademarks or registered trademarks of Vocus, Inc. or Vocus PRW Holdings, LLC.







More The Constitution Press Releases

Atheist Community Denounces Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Use of “Under God” in Pledge of Allegiance

(PRWEB) June 15, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Atheist Community Denounces Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Use of “Under God” in Pledge of Allegiance

San Diego, CA – June 14, 2004 – The online secular community Secularity.com has denounced today’s ruling by the Supreme Court that retains references to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. “Today’s 8-0 decision was moral cowardice.” said a spokesman for Secularity.com. “The Supreme Court made a political decision to avoid controversy, completely ignoring an unconstitutional favoring of religion.” Many legal experts have stated that, however controversial, “Under God” is a statement that God exists, and thus an endorsement of religion.

Secularity.com, an online community of atheists, agnostics, and humanists, holds the position that in a society based on freedom of religion, no religion should be favored or discriminated against, including the lack of religion – and that including “under God” in a daily oath recited and/or listened to by all schoolchildren is plainly in violation of freedom of religion. They argue that to favor the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is to favor changing our form of government from a free Democracy to a Theocracy. One member of Secularity.com, who asked to remain anonymous due to religious discrimination, stated “To believe in a God is to believe in a false code of ethics. Faith in a false belief system is the primary cause of war, and the primary cause of our social problems. …forcing millions of schoolchildren to hear or recite “there is a God” every day is indoctrination.”

Secularity.com states that in America, freedom of religion does not apply to those who choose no religion, and the religious majority frequently imposes their beliefs on the secular minority. Secularity.com asserts that those with secular beliefs are more lawful, and have stronger moral base, than the religious. They point to studies showing that while 14% of Americans do not worship a deity, less than half of one percent of the prison population is Atheist. Adam Pedersen, president of Secularity.com, states, “The basis of true morality is secularity.”

Secularity favors the removal of all references to God from all public slogans & assets, include the Pledge of Allegiance, public buildings, and currency.

For additional information, visit Secularity.com: http://www.secularity.com

About Secularity.com

Secularity.com is an online community open to anyone with secular beliefs, including atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, and objectivists. The only requirement for membership in Secularity is a lack of belief in god(s). Secularity.com offers secular event planning, free secular homepages, atheist dating services, discussion forums, newswires, and other resources to the secular community.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Adam Pedersen

Secularity.com

831-304-3184

http://www.secularity.com

###



More Freedom Of Religion Press Releases

Supreme Court Rules RLUIPA Does Not Violate the Establishment Clause: Church-State Experts React to Unanimous High Court Ruling

(PRWEB) June 1, 2005

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld the constitutionality of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that aims to protect the religious freedom of inmates and others held in state and local institutions. The unanimous decision in Cutter v. Wilkinson reverses a ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had held that the 2000 statute unconstitutionally advances religion by giving religious prisoners greater rights than their secular counterparts.

Religious freedom advocates hailed the decision, saying it would have a far-reaching, positive impact. “Cutter is a win for religious exercise in prison, but more importantly, it is a thumping victory for religion-only accommodations nationwide,” said Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Furthermore, Picarello said, the decision confirmed a recent High Court trend toward more religious accommodation. “There’s a strong argument to be made that the anti-accommodation reading of the Establishment Clause has been dead for a long time, but this unanimous decision removes any lingering doubt.”

RLUIPA opponents said that the decision was too open-ended and that it could lead to great disparities in the way the government treats those who are religious and those who are not. “The court fails to provide a theory of when it is impermissible for the state to treat religion better than the secular,” said Richard Schragger, an associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. “It has thus invited Congress to adopt legislation in areas far beyond prison administration that will treat religiously motivated persons more favorably than others.”

On March 17, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life hosted a discussion on the merits of the RLUIPA case, featuring Professor Schragger; Nathan J. Diament, director of the Institute for Public Affairs at the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America; and Ira “Chip” Lupu, F. Elwood and Eleanor Davis Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School. The full transcript of the discussion is available at http://www.pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=70 .

In February, the Forum published an in-depth backgrounder on the case, which provides legal and historical analysis of the issues in Cutter. An addendum to the backgrounder, analyzing Justice Ginsburg’s decision and its possible impact on future cases, will soon be available on the Forum’s Web site, http://www.pewforum.org.

RLUIPA allows a state or locality to limit an inmate’s religious freedom only if it can show that the restriction advances a compelling government interest, such as maintaining prison security. The statute imposes the same standard on zoning laws and other land-use regulations that negatively impact churches and other houses of worship, but that section of the law was not at issue in the case.

The case began when a number of Ohio prisoners who are members of the Satanist religion and other unconventional sects sued the state, alleging that prison officials had not adequately accommodated their religious needs and had therefore violated RLUIPA. Ohio argued that because RLUIPA mandates religious accommodation, it is a “law respecting an establishment of religion” and therefore prohibited by the First Amendment.

Writing for the entire court, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rejected Ohio’s contention, arguing that the law “confers no privileged status on any particular religious sect .…” She compared RLUIPA with other constitutionally acceptable accommodations for religion, noting, for example, that a prison is constitutionally free to allow prisoners to assemble for worship even if the prison forbids inmates from holding political rallies.

“In the past, the court has said there is a zone between the government’s obligation to guarantee the free exercise of religion and its obligation not to establish religion, and that within that zone, it can legislate religious accommodation,” said David Masci, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum. “In Cutter, Justice Ginsberg has said that RLUIPA fits comfortably into that zone.”

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life delivers timely, impartial information to national opinion leaders on issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs; it also serves as a neutral venue for discussions of those matters. The Forum is a project of the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan “fact tank” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world.





More Freedom Of Religion Press Releases

Arizona appeals immigrant law ruling amid protests

Arizona appeals immigrant law ruling amid protests
Arizona on Thursday appealed a judge’s decision to block key parts of the state’s crackdown on illegal immigrants and police in Phoenix arrested scores of activists protesting the remaining measures in the law.

Read more on Reuters via Yahoo! News

how to build a bigger back
ryan deiss’ video sales letter formula
Cake Toppers For Wedding