Schedule set for oral arguments over Proposition 8

[Kulindahr]

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.

They can also review it and decide to send it back without hearing it -- sort of a "Idiots, do it right" thing. I'm not certain, but I think that's common when a case looks to the justices who review it like there was some overlooked bit of law or procedure that should have been handled by the lower court.

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?

There is, though I don't know if it's the same everywhere; circuit and district courts can establish their own procedures. But I know that after the Heller decision, lots of cities and even some states hung onto their unconstitutional laws, in a series of cases, citizens there brought suit, supported by NRA lawyers frequently because they knew the ropes. For the most part, those went marching along about as fast as the paperwork could be moved from court to court, under an expedited system for things that were plainly settled by a SCOTUS decision. When that decision is recent, a case rarely has to go past a district court, because they -- using the gun cases -- just said, "Heller" and ordered the city or state to get with the program.

That's a weakness to the U.S. system; oppression and idiocy stand until someone (with money) decides to fight it -- so we get the justice the rich bother to pay for.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

That would be interesting, but I think the state bringing suit would have to demonstrate how the other state's law causes it harm.

 

[bankside]

That's a weakness to the U.S. system; oppression and idiocy stand until someone (with money) decides to fight it -- so we get the justice the rich bother to pay for.

Clearly, along with ObamaCare, you need ObamaSuit, the mandatory legal services insurance program.

 

[Kulindahr]

Clearly, along with ObamaCare, you need ObamaSuit, the mandatory legal services insurance program.

LOL

Except more lawsuits aren't really the answer -- we need a structural change, where someone in the government is actually on the side of the people. We have an Attorney General, whose job is to work for the government, not the people; we need an Advocate General, whose job is to challenge laws and stand up for the people.

 

[bankside]

We had something like that in Canada, though it wasn't one person occupying one position. It was sort of a do-it-yourself-but-we'll-pay-for-it grant, called the Court Challenges Program.

The current (conservative) government axed it a couple of years ago. It did encourage suing, but at least it did something about the financial barriers to access. And because anyone could apply, it has a widely-distributed range of interests, rather than just the priorities of one advocate general. And how do you appoint someone like that anyway?

 

[Kulindahr]

We had something like that in Canada, though it wasn't one person occupying one position. It was sort of a do-it-yourself-but-we'll-pay-for-it grant, called the Court Challenges Program.

The current (conservative) government axed it a couple of years ago. It did encourage suing, but at least it did something about the financial barriers to access. And because anyone could apply, it has a widely-distributed range of interests, rather than just the priorities of one advocate general. And how do you appoint someone like that anyway?

I certainly wouldn't let the president do it. There'd have to be a way to get a civil libertarian in.

 

[metta]

Prop. 8: Circuit Judge challenged

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/12/prop-8-circuit-judge-challenged/?wpmp_switcher=desktop

 

[hotatlboi]

wow they are getting desperate.

 

[hotatlboi]

I love this,

"Following that decision, ACLU/SC put Proposition 8 “at the forefront of [its] civil-rights agenda, sparing no effort to defeat Prop. 8 [and] challenge its passage.”

By that logic, the mormon judge would also have to be disqualified since the Mormons led the opposition.

Also, the Judge has now refused to remove himself. Good call. We cannot let these losers intimidate those who will stand for equality.

 

[Kulindahr]

wow they are getting desperate.

It's not desperation, it's "fighting evil at every turn", in their eyes. It's one of the things that helped drive me away from 'evangelical' Christianity -- that irrational, indeed anti-rational, mindset that at bottom sees only Christians as good in any way and no one who isn't a Christian as good in any way.

Thank 'Reformer' John Calvin, the lawyer, for that binary view of the world as "guilty" or "innocent".

I love this,

"Following that decision, ACLU/SC put Proposition 8 “at the forefront of [its] civil-rights agenda, sparing no effort to defeat Prop. 8 [and] challenge its passage.”

By that logic, the mormon judge would also have to be disqualified since the Mormons led the opposition.

Also, the Judge has now refused to remove himself. Good call. We cannot let these losers intimidate those who will stand for equality.

Not quite; that's a step farther removed (unless he's married to someone who organized opposition activities). But it is parallel.

 

[bankside]

It's not desperation, it's "fighting evil at every turn", in their eyes. It's one of the things that helped drive me away from 'evangelical' Christianity -- that irrational, indeed anti-rational, mindset that at bottom sees only Christians as good in any way and no one who isn't a Christian as good in any way.

The stated objection is that one might reasonably infer his position from the anti-discrimination work of his wife. And of course, a good, traditional, Christian wife would certainly heed her husband's will in these matters, so perhaps by extension this one does too.

Somehow, since we now have some years experience with universal suffrage, it doesn't seem right to compute the judge's opinion based on his wife's. Moreover, it doesn't follow that a judge has to be free of all personal opinion in order to rule objectively. Indeed there are many positions I hold which are often supported publicly by worse and by better arguments.

For the positions that I, as a supporter, know best, I know all the weak arguments very well. Any lawyer appearing before me wouldn't get very far if he were overly reliant on the weak ones.

 

[Kulindahr]

The stated objection is that one might reasonably infer his position from the anti-discrimination work of his wife. And of course, a good, traditional, Christian wife would certainly heed her husband's will in these matters, so perhaps by extension this one does too.

Ooh, that's twisted!

Which means there's a good chance that's exactly what they're thinking.

I wonder, if they were back in Old Testament days, would they decide that if a queen was idolatrous they should declare war on that kingdom because the king must be wicked, too......

 

[scream4ever]

In their opinion it isn't despiration, but any rational person can see it clearly is.

 

[Kulindahr]

In their opinion it isn't despiration, but any rational person can see it clearly is.

No, that's a label put on it by people too lazy to try to understand the other side -- who, rather than walking a mile in the other man's shoes, sniffs and says they stink and let that be their measure of the man.

 

[metta]

Judge refuses to withdraw from same-sex marriage case

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-judge-20101203,0,4871397.story?track=rss

 

[scream4ever]

No, that's a label put on it by people too lazy to try to understand the other side -- who, rather than walking a mile in the other man's shoes, sniffs and says they stink and let that be their measure of the man.

There is nothing to understand from the side of bigotry, and yes, they are DESPERATE to "stop evil at all fronts".

 

[Kulindahr]

There is nothing to understand from the side of bigotry, and yes, they are DESPERATE to "stop evil at all fronts".

Nine out of ten of them probably feel nothing at all like desperation. More likely are excitement, thankfulness, determination, gladness.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's why NOM resorts to dirty tactics, like say corrupting the country's judicial system by politicizing judicial retention votes in Iowa for example. They also financially operate their campaign and receive contributions in secrecy, in many instances in direct violation of local law and ethics. Those are things which our side just does not do.

Doesn't take desperation to do that. Under the inane principle of "fleecing Egypt", they justify anything as long as it's part of [STRIKE]jihad[/STRIKE] bringing righteousness. Stealing from the ungodly by manipulating the law is made praiseworthy.

 

[Kulindahr]

People generally don't resort to dirty tactics when there is a legitimate way to win, which is why it's called resorting, because if dirty tactics were easy and not frowned upon it would just be the way. LOL

JockBoy, I used to be part of that whole scene. Believe me, they don't see it as "dirty tactics" -- in fact if they think it's sanctioned by the Bible, they call it righteous.

And the more "wicked" their opponent, the more they find to be justified -- whether they're going to have an easy victory or not. Remember how some voted dozens or hundreds of times for the Palin 'competitor' on the dancing show? If it were done to them, they'd cry foul, but for them to do it to "unbelievers" isn't just okay, it's RIGHT. That attitude goes right up the line.

People may think they just have to be convinced to not use dirty tactics. That's a failed cause from the start, because to them -- those aren't dirty tactics.

 

[Kulindahr]

^^
I've realized that these are people whose idea of God is so small they think they have to do everything for Him -- even when it's contrary to His orders. I guess their version of God isn't too bright, either, if He needs His instructions changed and corrected and amended.

Maybe I should e-mail FotF and FRC and tell them I'm praying for them...



... because we're bidden to pray for those weak in faith.