This was a decision by the California supreme court not the federal supreme court. Also this is a state law not a federal law that was overturned.
This is why the state supreme court of California was allowed to over turn the ban on gay marriage in California.
Most state supreme courts have implemented "discretionary review," like their federal counterpart. Under such a system, intermediate appellate courts are entrusted with deciding the vast majority of appeals. For certain limited categories of cases, the state supreme court still operates under mandatory review, usually with regard to cases involving the interpretation of the state constitution or capital punishment. But for the vast majority, the state supreme court possesses the discretion to grant certiorari (known as review in states that discourage the use of Latin). These cases usually pertain to issues which different appellate courts within its jurisdiction have decided differently, or highly controversial cases involving a completely new legal issue never seen in that state.
Because there was a California constitutional ban on gay marriage there were a certain amount of people that appealed the decision in the California court system to the California supreme court by saying it violated their California constitutional rights of equality. And since they hear appeals that deal with interpretation of the California constitution, they heard this appeal and based on the appeal, interpreted it to conflict with a person's right of equality as described in the constitution of California. Therefore they overturned the law based on it being unconstitutional with the state of California's constitution.
If there is ever such a horrible day that the American people decide to vote for a federal ban on gay marriage through amending the Constitution of the United States, then the decision put forth by the California supreme court can be appealed to the federal supreme court. Because it can be argued that the state supreme courts ruling is in violation of federal constitutional law.
The duties of the federal supreme court are to interpret laws and can overturn laws they deem unconstitutional.
Both state supreme courts and the federal supreme court basically have the same duties and serve the same purpose the main difference is that the state supreme court deals with the jurisdiction of its respective state and the federal supreme court deals with federal law for the entire United States. And the decision of the federal supreme court trumps that of the state supreme court.
This is all part of the system of checks and balances set forth in the federal constitution of the United States and is used by the governments at state levels as well. All done to make sure no single institution could have all the power and in order to make sure laws are not put forth that violate the constitutional rights of individuals whether it be at a state or federal level.
This was a decision by the California supreme court not the federal supreme court. Also this is a state law not a federal law that was overturned.
This is why the state supreme court of California was allowed to over turn the ban on gay marriage in California.
Most state supreme courts have implemented "discretionary review," like their federal counterpart. Under such a system, intermediate appellate courts are entrusted with deciding the vast majority of appeals. For certain limited categories of cases, the state supreme court still operates under mandatory review, usually with regard to cases involving the interpretation of the state constitution or capital punishment. But for the vast majority, the state supreme court possesses the discretion to grant certiorari (known as review in states that discourage the use of Latin). These cases usually pertain to issues which different appellate courts within its jurisdiction have decided differently, or highly controversial cases involving a completely new legal issue never seen in that state.
Because there was a California constitutional ban on gay marriage there were a certain amount of people that appealed the decision in the California court system to the California supreme court by saying it violated their California constitutional rights of equality. And since they hear appeals that deal with interpretation of the California constitution, they heard this appeal and based on the appeal, interpreted it to conflict with a person's right of equality as described in the constitution of California. Therefore they overturned the law based on it being unconstitutional with the state of California's constitution.
If there is ever such a horrible day that the American people decide to vote for a federal ban on gay marriage through amending the Constitution of the United States, then the decision put forth by the California supreme court can be appealed to the federal supreme court. Because it can be argued that the state supreme courts ruling is in violation of federal constitutional law.
The duties of the federal supreme court are to interpret laws and can overturn laws they deem unconstitutional.
Both state supreme courts and the federal supreme court basically have the same duties and serve the same purpose the main difference is that the state supreme court deals with the jurisdiction of its respective state and the federal supreme court deals with federal law for the entire United States. And the decision of the federal supreme court trumps that of the state supreme court.
This is all part of the system of checks and balances set forth in the federal constitution of the United States and is used by the governments at state levels as well. All done to make sure no single institution could have all the power and in order to make sure laws are not put forth that violate the constitutional rights of individuals whether it be at a state or federal level.