Schedule set for oral arguments over Proposition 8

[rareboy]

Hopefully the homework has been done.

And the judges aren't fundamentalist Republican Talibani.

 

[hotatlboi]

^ $20 on the Supreme Court overturning that in 3..2..1..

 

[Kulindahr]

If they decide the defense lacks standing... is that the end of it?

 

[Kulindahr]

That's it, unless the government steps in.

Did Harris win the Attorney General's race? It could make all the difference.

Last I knew they were still counting.

 

[Kensei]

I feel optimistic about this.

 

[Kulindahr]

They are with 100s of thousands of ballots left.

However Kamala is still leading nicely.

So if the Ninth decides the current defense has no standing, would Kamala step in so that an appeal does have standing, and file a blank appeal?

 

[Kulindahr]

Kamala is the pro-gay marriage one and she said she would not.

Stupid, stupid.

She should let the idiots defending it now be ruled without standing, then file a blank appeal. The Ninth would then hear it without supporting arguments, Olsen and Boies would do an excellent tag-team presentation, the Ninth would toss Prop 8 in the trash bin...

and that's the time to not appeal. The whole bloody western end of the U.S. would benefit, an untrustworthy SCOTUS wouldn't get to rule, and then it would be time to pick another district where the court would be likely to be favorable, and do it again.

THAT would be helpful. Leaving it applying just to California would not.
And no, I don't have any prospects here, so this isn't self-interest. Though I have met some lovely couples I'd be thrilled to go blow bubbles at/for.

 

[rareboy]

I'd be thrilled to go blow bubbles

Who is Bubbles? One of their friends?

 

[hotatlboi]

If the appeals court upholds Judge Walker's ruling, does that mean that gay marriage would then be legal in just CA or in all the states in the 9th Circuit?

 

[hotatlboi]

The Court has announced the 3 judge panel that will hear the case.

http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/1...names-three-judges-who-will-hear-prop-8-case/

Looks like it is two left leaning judges and one who is more conservative.

 

[hotatlboi]

Yes, however they are also saying the Bush appointee is kind of moderate as well, despite graduating from BYU.

He previously ruled against a student who sued a school because a professor didn't like his anti-gay evangelizing.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13019940652301985760&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Also he ruled to deny standing to the Campaign for CA Families (a yes on prop8 group) in this case.

I think this shows that even though he went to a mormon school, he's at least certainly not a FRC/NOM type.

 

[thermodynamics]

Regarding the constitutionality, I think Olson/Boies have this thing locked up. Their arguments are nothing short of superb, their logic is flawless.

 

[hotatlboi]

It depends on what grounds.

I think if the circuit court rules based on equal protection then it would stand that similar bans in Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Arizona, Guam, and the Mariana Islands would be practically unenforceable.

So it is a case where if they rule on the standing issue (that the defendents-interveners are denied standing) then it would only apply to CA because Judge Walker's district court ruling is only valid in CA, and if they affirm the decision on the merits then it would apply to all states in the 9th?

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes, however they are also saying the Bush appointee is kind of moderate as well, despite graduating from BYU.

He previously ruled against a student who sued a school because a professor didn't like his anti-gay evangelizing.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13019940652301985760&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Also he ruled to deny standing to the Campaign for CA Families (a yes on prop8 group) in this case.

I think this shows that even though he went to a mormon school, he's at least certainly not a FRC/NOM type.

Elsewhere I saw screaming that Smith was chairman of a state Republican Party. While that's true, it's important to note which state -- it's Idaho. The Republicans in Idaho are very libertarian, more interested in individual liberty than imposing anyone's views of any kind on others.

It's also important to note that he was confirmed by a Congress with Democrats in control. He wasn't confirmed the first time Bush nominated him, but it was for the imbecilic reason that someone from Idaho should be allowed to be a federal judge in California.

So it is a case where if they rule on the standing issue (that the defendents-interveners are denied standing) then it would only apply to CA because Judge Walker's district court ruling is only valid in CA, and if they affirm the decision on the merits then it would apply to all states in the 9th?

Yep. That's why I hope if the defendants/interveners are denied standing, California's new AG will file a blank appeal -- appealing, without making any argument -- and then not appeal when (if) Prop 8 is thrown out by the Court. We'd have equality in this whole end of the U.S. -- and hopefully Olson and Boies would find someone to sue over a similar law in another jurisdiction where a favorable outcome could be expected (then another....).

 

[bankside]

Stupid, stupid.

She should let the idiots defending it now be ruled without standing, then file a blank appeal. The Ninth would then hear it without supporting arguments, Olsen and Boies would do an excellent tag-team presentation, the Ninth would toss Prop 8 in the trash bin...

and that's the time to not appeal. The whole bloody western end of the U.S. would benefit, an untrustworthy SCOTUS wouldn't get to rule, and then it would be time to pick another district where the court would be likely to be favorable, and do it again.

THAT would be helpful. Leaving it applying just to California would not.
And no, I don't have any prospects here, so this isn't self-interest. Though I have met some lovely couples I'd be thrilled to go blow bubbles at/for.

Just a second, if I understand correctly, your "Circuits" cover multiple states, and by California flubbing the appeal on purpose, thus losing at the Circuit, the ruling would then secure equality in all the states covered by that circuit. Yes?

But wouldn't the other states within the circuit then have standing to appeal to the Supreme Court in that situation?

 

[Kulindahr]

Just a second, if I understand correctly, your "Circuits" cover multiple states, and by California flubbing the appeal on purpose, thus losing at the Circuit, the ruling would then secure equality in all the states covered by that circuit. Yes?

But wouldn't the other states within the circuit then have standing to appeal to the Supreme Court in that situation?

Ooh, tricky!

I've never heard of that being done, and I doubt it can be: the only people with any standing at all are those who were party to the passage of Prop 8. Those who defend it have to have been integrally connected, e.g. the State of California, whose law it is, or have a serious claim to harm if the law is overturned, e.g. what the current defendants/interveners claimed. Those bringing suit merely have to have been harmed.

So the only way I can see that another state could get involved would be by claiming that it was harmed... but that would put them on the side of Boies and Olson. They couldn't have standing to defend the law, because it isn't their law.

I suppose conceivably they might be able to bring suit claiming harm if they had their Prop 8 clone type laws, which would be nullified by Prop 8 being tossed out, but that's pretty far-fetched -- they'd basically be suing a federal court for making a finding based on the U.S. Constitution.


Those states may get involved anyway -- as defendants as their own, similar, laws get challenged. But once the Ninth has spoken, those suits would be essentially pro forma, just tidying up by making the Prop 8 ruling plain in terms of other state laws which were de facto nuked along with the "big brother" or them all.


Good question -- made me think hard.

 

[bankside]

Okay, i'm a bit in the dark because we don't have enough provinces to bother with circuits. Each province has a court of appeal, and then you go straight to the Supremes.

But in your system, there would still need to be some basic process if other states within the circuit were foolish enough to continue enforcing their identical laws. However, as automatic as that may be, surely as the Circuit took its scythe through all the other state laws, that would carry the right of appeal if any of those states were so inclined?

PS, here we have a constitutional option called "Fuck it. Just send it to the Supreme Court for a decision," or in more polite company, the "Reference Procedure." Provinces or the Feds can just push the button and send the case. If it is of sufficient magnitude and likely to end up in litigation anyway, they can just send it to the court and argue it on constitutional principles, pro and con. Saves years of heartache and wasted time when something is sure to go there anyway. Nothing like that, in the States, eh?

 

[hotatlboi]

PS, here we have a constitutional option called "Fuck it. Just send it to the Supreme Court for a decision," or in more polite company, the "Reference Procedure." Nothing like that, eh?

Only for certain specific types of cases which are mandated to go to the Supremes originally.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1251

Original Jurisdiction

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

 

[Stardreamer]

Only for certain specific types of cases which are mandated to go to the Supremes originally.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1251

Original Jurisdiction

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

Also the US Supreme Court decides whether or not to hear cases with the exception of the examples above. The parties in the case in a lower court can appeal to the Supreme but the court could simply decide not to hear it and let the lower court's ruling stand.

 

[bankside]

Only for certain specific types of cases which are mandated to go to the Supremes originally.

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1251

Original Jurisdiction

(a) The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:

(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;

(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;

(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

So, if the Canadian ambassador wants to marry his American fiancé in Virginia, he'd sue at the Supreme Court.

(Or more likely, if one state sued another for recognition of the marriages it provides, or something like that?)