Progressive agenda being hijacked in favor of gay rights?

[Kulindahr]

Clearly it is possible, because as I said, that's what both sides agreed was the case.

You can't overturn a state law with regard to just one county. Either Prop 8 is overturned for the entire state or it isn't overturned at all.

You're confusing something with the main issue, because that's the way David Boies explained it when talking about where it goes from here: Prop 8 either applies to all of California, or it applies to none of California, but whether it goes to more than California depends on the standing issue: if standing is upheld, the Ninth will make a ruling, which will either make Prop 8 apply to all of California and only California or it will be overturned and no law like it will stand anywhere in the Circuit.

Of course if standing is upheld, then it will be appealed, and we wait, and the people of California continue with rights delayed, which is rights denied.

 

[hotatlboi]

You're confusing something with the main issue

I'm not confusing anything. Did you watch the oral arguments before the 9th circuit?

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not confusing anything. Did you watch the oral arguments before the 9th circuit?

Yes.

From Walker's ruling:

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Since Prop 8 is a law of the entire state of California, "permanently enjoining its enforcement" means the entire state of California. "The official defendants" means the state of California, though they declined to make a defense. "All persons under their control or supervision" means all the county clerks who issue marriage licenses. Thus the order directs that nowhere in the state of California may Prop 8 be enforced or applied.


An analysis:

Their answer is consequential either way. If the court decides ballot measure proponents LACK legal standing, the Appeals Court will then have little choice but to dismiss the appeal before them. It would mean the lower court ruling declaring Prop. 8 unconstitutional stands, opening the door once again to same sex marriages in California. It would also reduce the likelihood that this case will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where it would meet a very uncertain fate.

On the other hand if the justices say proponents DO have legal standing, the Appeals Court judges would then be free to consider questions about Prop. 8 on the legal merits. They could issue a sweeping decision requiring all states in the Ninth Circuit to allow same sex marriage. Or they could issue a much narrower decision that would apply only to California.

Note that whether the case ends due to no standing, or rules on the case because they decide there is standing, the decision they make will apply to all of California.


Beyond that, it's easy to find articles explaining that the narrowest ruling the Ninth could give would cover "only the State of California".


The arguments before the Ninth about a county focused on Imperial County, the question being whether they had standing to be involved; the judges decided they did not. In dismissing that action, the Court specifically stated that the matter was a statewide issue which did not apply to any specific county.

Yes, the complaint was filed against one specific county, but a state law can't be overturned for just one county: the law is either constitutional everywhere, or unconstitutional everywhere. But note also that the case is "Perry v. Schwarzenegger", not "Perry v. County of"; it is directed against the State of California in the person of its governor, and thus a ruling will apply to the entire state.

 

[hotatlboi]

Ok I reviewed the arguments again and I should clarify.

You are correct that the ruling which found prop 8 to be unconstitutional would be statewide.

What I was remembering was, there was a discussion about where the injunction Walker issued afterward would apply (i.e. the order to cease enforcement of prop 8). That was where they said it was limited, and it was to two counties, not one as I stated.

This is the relevant section.

JUDGE REINHARDT: You’re saying that in any event, that the scope of the injunction is quite limited.
MR. BOIES: The scope is, your Honor.
JUDGE REINHARDT: It’s limited to two counties, and then you’re counting on the Attorney General to go into state court and then have state court expand the injunction to the other counties.
MR. BOIES: I wouldn’t put it exactly that way, your Honor, but I know what the Court’s saying.
JUDGE REINHARDT: The fact of it may not the best legal terms, but that’s the practical.
MR. BOIES: The practical terms is that we do have to depend on the Governor and the Attorney General.
JUDGE REINHARDT: Well, you’re lucky the election came out the way it did.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ok I reviewed the arguments again and I should clarify.

You are correct that the ruling which found prop 8 to be unconstitutional would be statewide.

What I was remembering was, there was a discussion about where the injunction Walker issued afterward would apply (i.e. the order to cease enforcement of prop 8). That was where they said it was limited, and it was to two counties, not one as I stated.

This is the relevant section.



Sorry for the confusion.

Okay -- I see now.

I remember thinking the thing was a little weird then -- but many fine points of law get weird.