Legal recursion
« previous post | next post »
Don Asmussen's Bad Reporter for 5/27/2009:
This reminds me of some of the discussions of California's ballot proposition system — and since the cartoon came out the day after the California Supreme Court ruled on Proposition 8, I guess that it was supposed to.
Ransom said,
July 21, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
Perhaps slightly less recursive, but humorous in a few similar veins is the Onion article from a while back:
ACLU defends Nazis' right to burn down ACLU headquarters
Andrew said,
July 21, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
In that particular decision, the issue in question was whether the electorate, via the referendum process, had the right to take away a right granted by the court's interpretation of the California constitution. Denying the right to take away others' rights, in the language of the editorial, would require a change in the constitutional provision for amending the constitution, which, at this point, would make it much more difficult to reverse the amendment to ban same-sex marriages. If supporters of same-sex marriage wanted to deny the electorate the right to deny others' rights, they would only want to have a vote on the right to deny others rights' after reinstating the right they want to have a vote to deny the electorate the right to deny.
Lazar said,
July 21, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
I've seen assertions that the wording of Prop 8 – "no" meaning you favor gay marriage, "yes" meaning you oppose it – may have confused some people, and (very speculatively) that this might have affected the "no" side more because they were more likely to be new voters.
outeast said,
July 22, 2009 @ 5:28 am
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaandrew, my brains, they have dissolved after three attempts to parse that. Which I guess was the point. Damn you!
Alex said,
July 22, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
Huh? Whaaa…??
Oh well: infinity + one! Ha.
Aristotle Pagaltzis said,
July 23, 2009 @ 2:10 am
Here’s a link to the full original strip on the SFGate site.