is that he dissents more than even the dissenters in the opinion! (cf. AS on Hewitt).
At orals, Corrigan wondered whether gays needed a constitutional amendment in order to press constitutional claims, just as African Americans.*Justice Corrigan, in her dissent:
In a democracy, the people should be given fair chance to set the pace of change without judicial interference. [p. 161]
In Hewitt's version of vote-once "democracy" (i.e. the Constitutional Ban), there is no pace of change and the judiciary is cut out, not following a doctrine of 'judicial restraint'.
His vision of democracy is that civil change stops, without appeal.
BUYING TIME - FOR WHAT?
The hope (or the worry), if it is articulated as a strategy, is that, by dragging out the length of the change process, people might get inured to 'interim solutions'.
Because they see the same attitude-surveys, it must be true that they know that the changes are coming, yet they persist.
FACTS ON TRIAL
It's also true that considerable money and expertise going into California's November ballot is believed to be coming from outside the state.
Is that a democratic initiative of the People of California, then, one wonders? How is that not also a 'jackhammer'?
I'm sure gay groups also draw on outside resources; but no matter how one views proper judging, for political understanding let's not elevate the People's Will as if it were somehow ... inherently pure.
In fact, even Hewitt doesn't believe ultimately in the People's Will, given his publicly avowed beliefs as a "Roman Catholic Presbyterian" [his own description] coupled with his none-too-vague Christianism.
*Update, just to be clear: Justice Corrigan has publicly stated that she is not personally opposed. Like all conservatives, she's just caught between a rock and a hard place.
