Brief Memorandum to the Justice with Regard to the Case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger - Term Paper Example

Brief Memorandum to the Justice with Regard to the Case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger1 Introduction This memorandum is aimed at providing sufficient arguments as pertains to how Justice Roberts will rule in this case. The facts of the case will be delineated since they serve as a baseline from which arguments will be given. A decision will be made as to how Justice Robert’s will rule in this case. The answer given will be based on the knowledge we have concerning the work experience and beliefs of Justice Robert’s background. The experience and legal work of Justice Robert will also be reviewed in the process in bid to affirm why we believe that he will vote in a certain way as pertains to the case of discussion. In bid to garner an in depth understanding of Justice Roberts rulings and the bearing his experience will have on the case in question, prior Supreme Cases that he has ruled as pertains to equal protection will also be reviewed. Statement of Case Facts The facts of the case involve Arnold Schwarzenegger who is the official County Governor of California and Perry who represents a lesbian couple that has been denied marriage licenses on the basis of Proposition 8. The plaintiffs have adopted four children and they would like to get married so the children can be accorded benefits accorded to other children of heterosexual couples. The plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 which was voter enacted on November 2008 hence amending the California Constitution. Proposition 8 asserts that California will only recognize marriage between a man and a woman. The plaintiffs litigation is based on the notion that proposition 8 denied them due process and equal protection which is divergent to the Fourteenth Amendment hence the defendants violate2. With this genesis, this paper will be aimed at writing a memorandum as to how Justice Roberts should rule in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The propositions in this paper will be anchored on reviewing Justice Roberts’ work experience, beliefs and previous rulings on equal protection to aid in giving an opinion of how he will rule in this case. Consequently, decision making theories of the judicial system will also be reviewed in the process and reference made to the case and how we expect Justice Robert to rule on this particular case. Argument Background information on Justice Roberts: work experience and beliefs Justice John G. Roberts was born in 1955 in Buffalo New York and in a religious conservative family. Just like his family, Justice John Roberts was and is still a strong Catholic who lives in belief of the Catholic ordinances. Justice John Roberts is a very outspoken icon in the American Justice system considering his repeated appointment into higher offices of the American Law. Justice John Roberts is remembered as a very close legal intimate of George W Bush after having received Presidential nomination to the US Supreme Court and in the position of Chief Justice in 2005. Justice John Roberts is also known for his attempts to reverse the proposals and Supreme Court’s approval of separation of the church from the state. I8in addition, Justice Roberts is demonstrated as one of the American legal practitioners who respect the American Constitution and would always live to protect and uphold it alongside any Federal approved jurisdictions. President George W. Bush had no support for homosexual marriage holding that heterosexuality was God’s wish for human being and had to be codified full in one way or the other (WND). Considering the relationship between Justice John Roberts and the former US President, one can predict the likely stand and ruling of Justice John Roberts on issues concerning homosexuality. For Justice Roberts to qualify for the office nomination by President Bush, it meant that they had a lot in common and that Bush had great obsession on Robert’s interpretation of the law. It can also be argued that Chief Justice of nay state acts as one of the eminent personalities who can advice the president on the right direction to take when confronted with certain legal challenges. Making a reflection on the attributes of President George Bush and his stand on the issues of homosexuality, Justice Roberts could undoubtedly rule in contradiction to the plaintiffs. His relationship with the former US President clearly portrays his view on this case and the likelihood that he would fault the petition. In predicting the possible ruling by Justice John Roberts on the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, it very critical to consider and take greatest account of the stand of Catholic and Christianity in general with regard to the petition. Catholic Church considers a true marriage take the direction set by God at the creation whereby woman was created to offer company to man. Catholics oppose homosexuality on the basis that God did not create man for man or woman for woman and therefore any kind of homosexuality is unholy and should not be allowed in all societies. Catholics further argue by quoting the book of Hosea 9:1 that regards heterosexual marriage as holy and representation of the marriage between God and Israel. Reading from the above lines, it is easy to predict the possibility of Justice Roberts ruling against the petition presented in court in Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. In proving this prediction, consider the attachment of Justice John Roberts to Catholic Church. He was born a Catholic, grew a Catholic, got education as Catholic in a Catholic High School and married in Catholic Church. From the above attributions it is arguable that Justice John Roberts will also live to protect his believes about social life from the perspectives of Catholic Church. Since Catholic Church opposes gay or lesbian marriage to an extent of terming the acts as evil, Justice John Roberts will not possibly rule to the favor of the plaintiffs. Reading from the description of Justice John Roberts as an figure who respects the American Constitution and Federal laws, the case in discussion brings Justice Roberts at crossroads as far as the equal protection clause and Proposition 8 of the Californian Constitution are concerned. However, these facts do not impede prediction about the possible direction of ruling that could be taken by Justice John Roberts. Firstly, since the Equal Protection Act does not exemplify on the rights for homosexual marriages, it will be very easy for Justice John Roberts to rule in the demise and loss of the plaintiffs. Again, being understood as one who respects and recognizes the supremacy of constitution, it is invalid to predict that Justice John Roberts would go against Proposition 8 of the Californian Constitution. Instead, Justice John Roberts will rely on the Proposition 8 to deny the plaintiffs of their petition. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is another litmus paper for predicting the reaction of Justice John Roberts with regard to the Perry v. Schwarzenegger. DOMA is just a Federal law instituted to deny gay or lesbian marriages in the United States. As outlined in the DOMA, Federal Government recognizes marriage as the relation between man and women but no other form. The DOMA allows the anti-homosexuality states to deny and disregard homosexual licenses awarded to particular individuals by the pro-homosexuality states. In precision, the DOMA simply prohibits homosexual marriages in the Federal Courts. As previously mentioned the attributes of Justice John Roberts portraying him as one who respects the law provides sufficient ground to make rightful prediction on the possible direction of his ruling on the case in discussion. It is worthwhile to predict that Justice John Roberts would rule against the petition presented by the plaintiffs. This is possible when the DOMA is fully considered in the determination process about this case. The ability of Justice Roberts to uphold the constitution at all times can be used to decide on the way the Justice Roberts is going to rule in our case. An insight into the equal protection clause reveals that the constitution provides that the State shall offer equal to all the individuals under its jurisdiction3. See also Yick Wo v Hopkins4. However, according to Perry who is the plaintiff in the case, Proposition 8 violates this clause. Firstly, the proposition fails to protect the gay and lesbians against discrimination as pertain to freedom of choice. Compared to the heterosexual couples who have the right to choose whom to marry, this right is not exercised to the gays and lesbians. Moreover, the constitution is implemented selectively as pertains to who should marry and who should not. As long as you are a heterosexual, the constitution allows you to marry. However, if you are a gay or a lesbian, the proposition does not allow you to marry. It is therefore my opinion that on the basis of the violation to the Amendment, Justice Robert being a judge who upholds the constitution should rule out of favor of the plaintiff (Walker 118) Additionally, proposition 8 is regarded very rational and of the harmless to the equal protection clause of the Amendment of the Constitution. This is on the basis that amongst all nationals of the California jurisdiction, proposition 8 only victimizes the gay and lesbian community who are regarded as unethical and not the entire majority heterosexuals. Consequently, the gays and lesbians are declared suspects on the basis of their sexual orientation and their sexuality hence. On this prospect, I’m of the opinion that Justice Roberts should rule in dispute of the plaintiff since it is evident that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the constitution is in no contradiction to the proposition 8 and Justice Roberts is a judge who upholds the constitution (Walker 120). In conjunction, Justice Roberts is reported to have affirmed that regulations will only be regarded as unconstitutional if they are discriminatory, arbitrary or appear to be irrelevant to the policy. Lack of the three factors, the legislation is usually regarded as being free to adopt the policy as long as it does not in any unwarranted or an unnecessary way interfere with the liberty of individuals. So as to understand if Justice Roberts will rule in favor of the plaintiff or defendant, it is important to first review whether proposition 8 is discriminatory, arbitrary or irrelevant. If the proposition is not flawed with any of this trait and in this case homosexuality is not regarded as civil right, then Justice Roberts will confidently rule in opposition of the plaintiffs.[ The validity and legality of Proposition 8 and why we believe Justice Roberts should rule in opposition of the plaintiff is revealed in the inconsistency made by the plaintiff’s expert so as to affirm why Proposition 8 is against the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the constitution. George Chauney a historian evidenced that Proposition 8 led to the discrimination of the lesbian and the gay community. This is since proposition 8 regarded them as out of the norm of the society and not interfering with the equal protection clause. George evidenced the stereotyping that had been propagated by proposition 8 as pertained to the gay and lesbian couples Since Justice Roberts affirmed that legislations should not be adopted if they are irrelevant and lack a rational basis, Proposition 8 should not be adopted and thus Justice Roberts should rule in favor of the plaintiff. Proposition 8 is a violation of the 14th Amendment clause of equal protection in the constitution since it lacks a rational basis of implementation. Most propositions passed by any State are usually in the interest of the State. However, I can’t help but wonder; what is the interest of the state in preventing gays and lesbians from marrying the partners they choose. Even under all scrutiny, there is no viable rational basis upon which the State is aimed at achieving by enforcing proposition 8. Proponents argue that Proposition 8 aims at safeguarding the traditional marriage which is union between a man and a woman. However, is this rational ground of denying same sex couples the right to marriage? In the case of Williams v Illinois5, it was held that ancient aspect of marriage was not a rational basis and the State had to declare its interest in proposition 8 to make it rational and hence qualify for enforcement. On the basis of the traditional argument of the proposition 8 proponents, critics argue that it is based on the disparity in genders by giving one gender an upper hand compared to the other. Robert Justice previous rulings on previous equal protection cases A case where the ruling made by Justice Roberts is significant and can serve as the basis of evaluating the decision that Justice Roberts might make in this case, is the case of Adkins v. Children’s Hospital6. In this case, the court was asked to asked to invalidate a minimum wage clause for women in Washington D.C. Justice Roberts asserts that in the Tipaldo case the New York state of lawyers ruled that sustain was not an enough clause to override the Adkins case.7However, the New York lawyers avowed that the law being different from the statute, the court would not have to overrule the Adkins to sustain the case. This led to Justice Roberts describing this argument as being a product of timidity and disingenuous and thus described the Statues in the two cases as being similar and thus there was no need to overrule either. However, a year down when a motion to overrule the Akdkins was presented directly to the court, Justice Roberts was delighted to oblige to overturning the ruling.8 With reference to the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger and the ruling made in the Adkins case, we have the opinion that Justice Roberts will rule that failure to allow marriages among the gay and lesbian community is against the equal protection clause. In the above case, it is evident that Justice Roberts was not pleased with the arguments made by the New York lawyers and since the court had just been told to review the case, he did not overturn the ruling., this means that the decision he will make will dependent on the mandate given to the court. Where the court will be given the mandate to review if Proposition 8 violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Justice Roberts will surely rule that it does violates the equal protection clause (William 1347). Inference is another basis that I will use to assert that proposition 8 violates the equal protection clause and thus according to previous ruling of Justice Roberts, he should rule in favor of the plaintiff and declare proposition 8 a violation to the 14th Amendment. By coming up with proposition 8 that banned marriages between individuals of the same sex, this inferred that heterosexual marriages were superior to same sex marriages. My question is; what basis was this inference based on? Is it true that a relationship between a man and a woman is more superior to a relationship between a man and a man or a woman and a woman? This is not the basis on which legislation is made and thus proposition 8 is not a viable document. This was the ruling made in the case of Palmore v Sidoti9 where the constitution was not meant at interfering with the private affairs of its citizens. This further evidences the lack of viability of Proposition 8 and its violation to the equal protection clause. Since there is no individual who is superior to the other, proposition 8 should not infer marriages between same sexes to be inferior to marriages between heterosexuals and thus Justice Roberts being a rational judge, should rule in favor of the plaintiff (Schacter 1363). Conclusion . On the basis of Justice Robert supporting the constitution, I believe that he will rule in favor of the plaintiff. Also, in a ruling, Justice Roberts said that no legislation will be passed if it is discriminatory, not rational, lacks relevance and is against the liberty of individuals. Documented cases have been provided and reference made to the constitution as pertains to the irrationality and discriminatory nature of proposition 8 and its violation to the constitution. On this basis, Justice Roberts should thus rule in favor of the plaintiff since Proposition is not a legislation that upholds the liberty of the gay and lesbians. In finality, it is only the controversial liberal and conservative issue that looms uncertainty as pertains to the decision that Justice Roberts will make regarding our case. However, with reference to his belief in the constitution and the irrationality of Proposition 8, I am more convinced that Justice Roberts will rule in favor of the plaintiff and assert that Proposition 8 is in violation of the equal protection clause in 14th Amendment of the constitution and thus should not be upheld. I look forward to Justice Roberts ruling in favor of Perry in affirmation of his beliefs, values, work experience and his previous rulings. Work Cited Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 261 U.S. 525 (1923) Barkacs, Linda L. "Same Sex Marriage, Civil Unions, and Employee Benefits: Unequal Protection Under the Law - when Will Society Catch Up with the Business Community?" Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 11.2 (2008): 33-44. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 6 Mar. 2012. Buffie, William C., M.D. "Public Health Implications of Same-Sex Marriage." American Journal of Public Health 101.6 (2011): 986-90. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 3 April. 2012. Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell 290 U.S. 398 (1934) Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M Jekielek, and Carol Emig, “Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It”, Child Trends; Tr 2771: (2002); 1-13. Web. 3 April. 2012. Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R 294 U.S. 240, 314 (1935) Palmore v Sidoti 466 US 429, 433 (1984) Perry v Schwarzenegger 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 931 (N.D. Cal. 2010) 42 USC § 1983 Schacter, Jane S. "Ely at the Altar: Political Process Theory through the Lens of the Marriage Debate." Michigan law review 109.8 (2011): 1363-411. ABI/INFORM Complete. Web. 3 April. 2012. United States v. Butler 297 U. S. 1 (1936) US Const Amen XIV, 1 Walker, Vaugh. United States District Court Judge. For the Northern District of California; (2010): 1-138. Web. 3 April 2012 Yick Wo V Hopkins 118 us 356, 369 (1886) WND. President Bush to America: Homosexuality is sin. http://www.wnd.com/2003/07/20054/ Catholic Answeres. Gay marriages. 2012. Web. . Johnson, Ramon. Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). 2012. . Longley, Robert. Biography of John G. Roberts. 2012. . Read More