California's women on boards law is unconstitutional

[carolina73]

At least there is resistance to insanity.

[RMNIXON]

Soon corporate boards will have several hundred people serving. This will be required to cover all of the identity classes we now face. Lets see, women, blacks, Hispanics, Pacific Islanders, gays, transgenders, little people, Wiccans, homeless. Did I leave out any important groups?

And the never ending Symbolism over substance (or even competence) will be the ruin of these companies.

The recent story about Netflix telling employees to dial back the WOKE crap might save them? We shall see.......................

[Standing Wolf]

Time after time state legislatures waste everyone's time and the taxpayers' money creating and passing bills into law that have zero chance to face a court challenge. Is it pandering? Of course it is, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle engage in it constantly. And when those laws are struck down and nullified by the courts, the ones being pandered to, regardless of Party affiliation, will cry about "unelected judges legislating from the bench". This time it was certain special interests on the Left that were being pandered to, but it won't always be.

[Chris]

Time after time state legislatures waste everyone's time and the taxpayers' money creating and passing bills into law that have zero chance to face a court challenge. Is it pandering? Of course it is, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle engage in it constantly. And when those laws are struck down and nullified by the courts, the ones being pandered to, regardless of Party affiliation, will cry about "unelected judges legislating from the bench". This time it was certain special interests on the Left that were being pandered to, but it won't always be.

Well, far as I'm concerned, finding a law unconstitutional returns it to the legislature. Legislating from the bench requires the court to actually write law, as in Roe. I don't see finding, for example, DOMA unconstitutional as judicial activism.

[Standing Wolf]

Well, far as I'm concerned, finding a law unconstitutional returns it to the legislature. Legislating from the bench requires the court to actually write law, as in Roe. I don't see finding, for example, DOMA unconstitutional as judicial activism.

Statute law - laws created and codified by legislatures - comprises only a small fraction of the body of laws in the U.S. Go into a large law library and compare the few shelves of books that contain the case law for your state, along with federal statutes, with the hundreds of volumes of case law - the collected decisions of virtually every appellate case ever decided. The concept of only statute law being binding law has never existed in this country. And what is sometimes mischaracterized - by the press, and especially by parties whose interests or views are negatively affected by a decision - as being a court "writing a law" is nothing of the kind. Striking down an un-Constitutional law is in no sense "writing a law".

[Chris]

Statute law - laws created and codified by legislatures - comprises only a small fraction of the body of laws in the U.S. Go into a large law library and compare the few shelves of books that contain the case law for your state, along with federal statutes, with the hundreds of volumes of case law - the collected decisions of virtually every appellate case ever decided. The concept of only statute law being binding law has never existed in this country. And what is sometimes mischaracterized - by the press, and especially by parties whose interests or views are negatively affected by a decision - as being a court "writing a law" is nothing of the kind. Striking down an un-Constitutional law is in no sense "writing a law".

Right, great definitions.

[Peter1469]

Naturally.

California's women on boards law is unconstitutional

The problem is that these politicians push this laws and pass these laws knowing they will get shot down by the courts. But the plan is to blame the courts for hurting whoever benefited from the law. It is an act that helps destroys institutions.

[Peter1469]

Statute law - laws created and codified by legislatures - comprises only a small fraction of the body of laws in the U.S. Go into a large law library and compare the few shelves of books that contain the case law for your state, along with federal statutes, with the hundreds of volumes of case law - the collected decisions of virtually every appellate case ever decided. The concept of only statute law being binding law has never existed in this country. And what is sometimes mischaracterized - by the press, and especially by parties whose interests or views are negatively affected by a decision - as being a court "writing a law" is nothing of the kind. Striking down an un-Constitutional law is in no sense "writing a law".

Case law is not intended to create or rewrite legislation. Case law is judicial interpretation of laws, regulations, and legal precedence.

If a court finds a law unconstitutional on its face, it should strike down the law. If the legislature wants to try to rewrite it to meet court muster, that is up to the legislature.

[Chris]

The problem is that these politicians push this laws and pass these laws knowing they will get shot down by the courts. But the plan is to blame the courts for hurting whoever benefited from the law. It is an act that helps destroys institutions.

SO bot virtue signaling and undermining courts as an institution.

[Standing Wolf]

Case law is not intended to create or rewrite legislation. Case law is judicial interpretation of laws, regulations, and legal precedence.

If a court finds a law unconstitutional on its face, it should strike down the law. If the legislature wants to try to rewrite it to meet court muster, that is up to the legislature.

You've described the system as it currently operates, and always has. The problem is that many people do not understand how it works and believe that the court "makes laws" in the sense that legislatures do.