San Francisco Chronicle, Nov. 1, 2008 by Bob Egelko
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/31/MNOU13P1GT.DTL&tsp=1
UC Berkeley law Professor Jesse Choper said the court might well conclude that retroactively nullifying a marriage would violate a couple’s right to due process of law or violate the constitutional ban on interference with contracts.
NPR, Day to Day, Oct. 23, 2008 Host Alex Chadwick and Alex Cohen
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96032136
“Well, there are two choices. One is to take another shot at a constitutional amendment by putting it on a ballot. The other alternative is to hope and strategize for the Supreme Court of California to change its mind.”
Legal Newsline, July 21, by Chris Rizo
http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/214252-judiciary-committee-to-probe-pro-business-supreme-court-rulings
Choper, a constitutional law expert, said since U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired in 2005 and Samuel Alito was named to fill the vacancy on the high court, there has been a “tendency generally” on the part of the court to be more “conservative” in their decisions overall, and that includes rulings that affect business and commerce. “They have to come out one way or another,” Choper said.
The Recorder, July 17, by Mike McKee
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202423046303
Choper felt the effort to get Prop 8 off the ballot had been worth trying, even though it failed.
“The state Legislature has voted for same-sex marriage a couple of times,” Choper said. “[Opponents of Prop 8] have everything to gain and nothing to lose.”
The Desert Sun, July 5, by Nicole C. Brambila
http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008807050307
“I think it would be an uphill battle to show it as something that undermines the whole constitution,” said Jesse Choper…. “It’s one right that (would be) taken away from one group of people. We shouldn’t be able to amend the constitution this way, but that’s what it provides for.”
KQED Forum with Michael Krasny, June 26, host John Myers
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R806301000
“When I talk about liberal-leaning justices I certainly don’t mean what we identify as liberal-leaning political figures. There is some overlap, but there is some difference. It is a philosophical approach to interpreting these very broad places in the Constitution which has to be given some context.”
The Desert Sun, June 17, by Nicole C. Brambila
http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080617/NEWS01/806170315/-1/NEWSFRONT
“It’s a big deal.… Eventually, and I think sooner than later, I think a case is going to reach the U.S. Supreme Court and that will be the big bell rung, one way or the other.”
ABC World News, June 15, by Laura Marquez
http://abcnews.go.com/search?searchtext=gay%20marriage&from=0&to=9&type=video
“You have nothing to lose, and you have something that can be gained. So I would expect that we have a very substantial marriage business here in California over the next several months.”
UPI, June 11
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/11/Leahy_criticizes_Supreme_Court_rulings/UPI-61461213231898/
Professor Jesse Choper said there is “some basis” for Leahy’s remarks. Since U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired in 2005 and Samuel Alito was appointed, there has been a tendency on the court to be more “conservative” in their rulings, Choper said. Whether it’s for good or ill that the high court has been ruling on the side of businesses is “in the eye of the beholder,” he said.
Sacramento Bee, June 5, by Ryan Lillis, Bill Lindelof and Bobby Caina Calvan
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/990310.html
If the initiative passes, a legal challenge of the ruling is almost assured, said Jesse Choper, a law professor at UC Berkeley.