SAN FRANCISCO — For most of his eight years on the California Supreme Court, the low-key and affable Carlos R. Moreno largely blended in with the six other justices, building a reliably middle-of-the-road record.
Then came Proposition 8, the initiative that reinstated a ban on same-sex-marriage. In May, Moreno cast the court's only vote to overturn it.
Now, with the court's term concluding last month, the jurist chosen because of his moderate views is getting a second appraisal from legal analysts, who say his unexpected boldness may signal a growing independence. His lonely stance has raised his profile and encouraged speculation that he may be stepping into a more visible role.
Moreno, in several interviews, offered some of his most extensive comments on the controversial decision, which he weighed while he was under consideration for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court's lone Democrat, born in Los Angeles to Mexican immigrants, also indicated a greater willingness to dissent. Asked if he regretted any of his rulings, Moreno said he wished he had "stuck to my guns" and dissented in a criminal case last year in which the court upheld a conviction even though hearsay evidence was admitted. The U.S. Supreme Court later overturned the ruling.
Moreno has tended to vote with the court's more liberal jurists -- Joyce L. Kennard and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar -- and he joined a narrow majority in May 2008 to overturn the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
But he had never come close to becoming a liberal icon like Stanley Mosk, the late justice whom Moreno replaced. Court analysts were more likely to commend Moreno for congeniality than for courage.
"His signature opinion to date is his dissent in the Prop. 8 case," said Jon Eisenberg, an appellate lawyer. "He did not stay under the radar. He took a position without regard to the consequences. . . . That was unusual for him because he threw caution to the wind."
Embracing a novel theory, Moreno said he "legally and morally" believes that a measure that strips a minority of a key right can not be approved as constitutional amendment by a mere majority in an election. That's a stance the state court has never taken and, had President Obama nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court, it could have doomed his appointment.
