Yep. You read that right. The California Supreme Court, which, according to this article is “Republican-dominated,” overturned the state marriage laws which prohibited same sex marriage.
The California Supreme Court has six Republican appointees and one Democrat. Scholars have described the court under the leadership of Chief Justice Ronald M. George as cautious and moderately conservative.
Wow. That’s pretty amazing, don’t you think?
Can we trade some of our Virginia Republicans for some California ones? 😉
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
It’s sad when recognition of basic human rights are “pretty amazing”, but I suppose that the Republicans have done a pretty good job of bringing that to this point.
(Not that Dems – and *especially* Virginia Democrats – have much to crow about.)
That said, I’m thrilled for America, where states like California will drag assbackwards states like Virginia into the 21st century.
Being appointed by a Republican does not make a judge Republican.
Take it up with the LA Times. And isn’t it a bit naive to think that R’s would appoint someone other than R’s?
California’s Republican governors are hardly noted for their conservative leanings. With Republicans like that, who needs Democrats? No wonder the Libertarians call them all Republicrats.
Yeah – which is why I said we need to trade some of our VA R’s for some CA ones 😉
Why don’t you move there? I hear the weather’s nice.
Okay, can someone please a leave a glue trap out? This is tiresome.
vjp – i think Anon E. Mouse is talking about truth in labelling. Incumbent politicians often worry more about maintaining power than keeping faith. As a consequence of this desire to maintain power, incumbents have sought to undermine the political parties which once held them accountable. Of course, politicians chose the methods to weakened political parties that sounded most palatable. To eliminate “smoke filled rooms” at conventions, for example, we now have primaries. And to make the primaries as fair as possible, the incumbents even pushed for “open primaries.” Fortunately, even the Supremes had trouble with “open primaries.”
California, unfortunately, has led the way in promoting this sort of 21st Century behavior. So what a politician calls himself in California, Republican or Democrat, makes less difference than elsewhere. The result is that instead of smoke filled rooms at conventions the rich and well positioned are more likely to control California political processes.
BM would do so himself, but he keeps all his glue for sniffing. 🙂
I know a lot of folks don’t like facts getting in the way, but if anyone is interested in the make up of the CA Supreme Court, it’s right here. Those are real live Republicans that appointed them, and I’m going to take the word of a CA Supreme Court Justice about his or her political affiliation over that of some anonymous idiot on the internets any day.
Hello MB.
Anonymous idiots? You don’t have to respond. As you have already pointed out, there is no point in conversing with me. Of course, the truth is you are saying one thing and doing another. People, all of us, do have an unfortunate habit of doing that. Don’t we?
I wasn’t speaking to your point or of you (in this case, anyway). But if you care to self identify, have at it.
The justices are NOT self-identified, but are identified by the party affiliation of the governor who appointed them. So what do you do with Ronald George, who was appointed to courts by both Republican and Democratic governors?
Now, if we can find out to whom they make political contributions….
Mouse – it is time for you to stop disrespecting MB by deliberately reversing his initials. As for the judges – why not follow my advice and contact the folks at the LA Times and see what information they used in identifying the judges? At this point, all you’re doing is wasting bandwidth.