Schedule set for oral arguments over Proposition 8

[Kulindahr]

FEARLESS PREDICTION:

The case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the usual suspects (stormtroopers in robes) will vote it down 5-4... the same margin that launched W into the White House.

In fact, the vote may be 6-4 if Clarence Thomas' incredibly large genitals count as a separate person.

Boies seems confident SCOTUS would come down in freedom's favor -- said he wasn't going to aim for less than eight justices, if I heard right on the news this a.m..

I still think it would be better to grab a chance to bring another case in a different district court, and then a third, building a base of precedent. But they're the pros.....

 

[hotatlboi]

Boies seems confident SCOTUS would come down in freedom's favor -- said he wasn't going to aim for less than eight justices, if I heard right on the news this a.m.

Boies is framing the issue in public as it should be framed, that it is not a left or right issue but a civil rights issue.

However he is smart enough to know that there is no way Scalia or other other 3 hard core conservatives will vote for gay marriage.

 

[Kulindahr]

Boies is framing the issue in public as it should be framed, that it is not a left or right issue but a civil rights issue.

However he is smart enough to know that there is no way Scalia or other other 3 hard core conservatives will vote for gay marriage.

I'm not sure, but I think it's Scalia he's aiming at with the harm part of the argument. He's already talking to the Supremes, just not officially -- and having been there, he knows them.

 

[rareboy]

Boies seems confident SCOTUS would come down in freedom's favor -- said he wasn't going to aim for less than eight justices, if I heard right on the news this a.m..

I still think it would be better to grab a chance to bring another case in a different district court, and then a third, building a base of precedent. But they're the pros.....

I tend to lean this way too.

I think it would be better to grind down the opposition circuit by circuit.

As different provinces accepted gay marriage, I think it helped accelerate the favourable ruling from our Supreme court.

Eventually, it could build such an overwhelming body of opinion that the Supreme Court would have to rule in favour and leave their Catholic altar boy afraid of going to hell aside.

 

[construct]

I voted in the poll that the appeal would founder on the standing issue, and I believe that even more having heard the arguments.

Boise made good arguments that the deputy clerk had no Article III standing because that position is carrying out merely ministerial duties and was not a named defendant. There could be no independent standing because the harm was not particularized or concrete even if there was harm at all. In fact, I don't believe there was any harm at all.

The proponents are distinguishable from intervenors in other cases because they are not state officials such as a legislature nor are they acting at the behest of named defendants. Therefore they cannot demand standing as though they were a part of government. Since there is no precedent on point, that issue might go to the Supreme Court.

 

[hotatlboi]

I'm not sure, but I think it's Scalia he's aiming at with the harm part of the argument. He's already talking to the Supremes, just not officially -- and having been there, he knows them.

Boies is not an idiot.

Scalia thinks that gay sex should be illegal, there's no way in hell he's supporting gay marriage.

 

[rareboy]

Boies is not an idiot.

Scalia thinks that gay sex should be illegal, there's no way in hell he's supporting gay marriage.

This.

And as JB has pointed out, the conservatives have an extremely narrow view of equality. One imagines that if you are a white, heterosexual, catholic, republican male, you are equal.

So the question becomes...how can everyone fuck this up to deliver not only direct harm to homos but insult as well. to make sure that homos never try to be equal in their rights again.

Because I have to say. It is really hard to trust the US supreme court.

 

[hotatlboi]

You have to conclude that Boies/Olson feel that Kennedy would side with them.

There's no way they would feel confident about their chances at the Supreme court if they were counting on the conservatives.

 

[Kulindahr]

I voted in the poll that the appeal would founder on the standing issue, and I believe that even more having heard the arguments.

Boies made good arguments that the deputy clerk had no Article III standing because that position is carrying out merely ministerial duties and was not a named defendant. There could be no independent standing because the harm was not particularized or concrete even if there was harm at all. In fact, I don't believe there was any harm at all.

The proponents are distinguishable from intervenors in other cases because they are not state officials such as a legislature nor are they acting at the behest of named defendants. Therefore they cannot demand standing as though they were a part of government. Since there is no precedent on point, that issue might go to the Supreme Court.

Didn't one of the judges bring up the ministerial function before Boies? I thought he was making a different argument and got asked that -- and returned the ball with superlative beauty.

I never even considered that the issue of standing might go to the Supremes; that's an intriguing possibility.

 

[Kulindahr]

I saw this, and my attention was caught by the sign on the right. As a Christian, my first reaction was, "No, it's the Constitution v. God's Law", and my second was, "For God's sake, for the Gospel's sake, choose the Constitution."

I just don't get how these 'evangelicals' fail to see they're actually fighting against Christ.

 

[construct]

Didn't one of the judges bring up the ministerial function before Boies? I thought he was making a different argument and got asked that -- and returned the ball with superlative beauty.

It may very well have been one of the judges who brought it up. I listened to the argument once, and I may well have missed who argued which thing. In any event, the fact that her job was merely to carry out the policies of other superior officials meant that she had no standing in appealing (or even intervening) in the case. Further, she couldn't establish independent Article III standing because of particularized, concrete harm.

I never even considered that the issue of standing might go to the Supremes; that's an intriguing possibility.

I think it might because the other Supreme Court cases did not address this particular constellation of facts.

 

[metta]

David Boies Says Antonin Scalia Could Vote Against Gay Marriage Ban Prop 8

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=7043&MediaType=1&Category=26



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWYBZlyrEho[/ame]

 

[Kulindahr]

I came across something that makes me think Scalia won't care at all what the arguments are -- he's convinced the Constitution grants the government the power to regulate morals:

JUSTICE SCALIA concluded that the statute - as a general law regulating conduct and not specifically directed at expression, either in practice or on its face - is not subject to normal First Amendment scrutiny, and should be upheld on the ground that moral opposition to nudity supplies a rational basis for its prohibition.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=501&invol=560

If "moral objection" to an activity supplies a rational basis, there's nothing wrong with any laws at all if they can claim a moral connection -- according to Scalia.

I wonder if we could get away with banning fat people, in his view?

I do know that his position, and that of SCOTUS in that case, is a reversal of a long tradition of the Court to uphold individual rights over moral notions.

 

[metta]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MvifdkOdZY[/ame]

 

[Kensei]

What's the time line on this? Roughly how long until this is wrapped up in the ciruit? A month?

If it's heading to supreme court, when will that be?

 

[hotatlboi]

What's the time line on this? Roughly how long until this is wrapped up in the ciruit? A month?

If it's heading to supreme court, when will that be?

No one knows when the ruling will come. It depends on whether it is a standing ruling or one on the merits, and on other things. Could be as soon as a few weeks or it could be months.

 

[scream4ever]

If they refer the standing issue to the California Supreme Court, it likely won't be too long for them to announce it. Otherwise, I expect a ruling in 2 or 3 months.

 

[rareboy]

I came across something that makes me think Scalia won't care at all what the arguments are -- he's convinced the Constitution grants the government the power to regulate morals:

JUSTICE SCALIA concluded that the statute - as a general law regulating conduct and not specifically directed at expression, either in practice or on its face - is not subject to normal First Amendment scrutiny, and should be upheld on the ground that moral opposition to nudity supplies a rational basis for its prohibition.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=501&invol=560

If "moral objection" to an activity supplies a rational basis, there's nothing wrong with any laws at all if they can claim a moral connection -- according to Scalia.

I wonder if we could get away with banning fat people, in his view?

I do know that his position, and that of SCOTUS in that case, is a reversal of a long tradition of the Court to uphold individual rights over moral notions.

Not surprising.

I'm sure that his Catholic Church masters have a seminary full of Jesuits ploughing through all case law to ensure that there's some way that the conservative court can crush this once and for all.

 

[Kulindahr]

If they refer the standing issue to the California Supreme Court, it likely won't be too long for them to announce it. Otherwise, I expect a ruling in 2 or 3 months.

That would be the conservative route, and is what I tend to expect. I read somewhere that if they're going to request a position from SCC, it will happen within the week. I have no idea how long SCC might take with it then.

 

[White Eagle]

I wonder when we will get blamed for burning down the Mormon Tabernacle.