First, I'm a realist about these things. The government's case in the Arizona immigration law (which I vehemently oppose) was based on concurrent jurisdiction, and there is precedent to uphold on that basis. So despite the initial injunction blocking enforcement of part of the law, it very well may get upheld in its entirety on appeal. They'll probably have to bring a 4th Amendment case in order to get it struck down permanently, but nobody has done so as yet. So don't assume that I'm basing my arguments on my personal beliefs: I calls 'em like I sees 'em.
That being said, the ruling in Prop-8 is a napalm bomb of judicial brilliance. Prop-8 is dead-dead-dead, and barring Justice Kennedy's personal bias to uphold the law for some arcane and obscure reason only he can understand, it will stay that way.
The Prop-8 ruling goes through both the 8th Amendment and 14th Amendment arguments in very excruciating detail, citing cases from both California and Federal law in rendering what is a blistering evisceration of the defendants' arguments --- which essentially were, "The most people voted for this, so it should be the law no matter who it discriminates against." Seriously, that's their case: the courts shouldn't overrule the will of the majority of voters, even if it violates the Constitution.
And the judge didn't hold anything back in reaming them a new asshole, eight feet wide.
Basically, the law is an attempt to codify discrimination against gays and lesbians, and there's no way that's going to hold up. The ruling's second-to-last paragraph says it all, you can read it for yourself if you want. But take this to the bank: in five years, when the dust settles on this mess at the Supreme Court in D.C., it will be Justice Kennedy who holds this law in his hands. He can either stick to what his oath mandates he do (uphold the Constitution) or go off the deep end with the Fascist Four and open the doors on a new era of American bigotry. We can only wait and see. - Tim
