Verdict on Proposition 8

[scream4ever]

Thanks for the shoutout Jockboy!

Just to clarify, I thought that the defendants issued the request of the stay on August 3, and Walker would actually make his decision on August 6? Either way my money is betting that he won't issue a stay. I'd even say the 9th circut may not either (they have a VERY strong track record in siding with gay rights).

 

[scream4ever]

^ Everyone has an opinion. There is no conclusive evidence on which way Kennedy will rule on this.

There is never any solid evidence on which way and judge will rule on anything. However, one can look at past legal rulings they have made and make predictions as to how they will rule. Right now there seems to be very strong evidence that Kennedy will side with Walker.

 

[hotatlboi]

And this could ultimately turn out for the better, I'm not saying it won't. Your post just seemed a bit premature to me. You can't really tell them that it's time to eat crow yet.

 

[evanrick]

why is government in the marriage business to begin with, that is a bigger question than who should marry who.

 

[evanrick]

open and shut case.

 

[hotatlboi]

open and shut case.

At least for judges that aren't basing their rulings on personal prejudices.

 

[MoltenRock III]

What kind of an argument could the defense offer to change Walker's mind? He already made a decision on the available evidence and went as far as to state that Prop 8 has no rational basis.

Since when have conservatives (read; Republicans) had a "rational basis" on anything? I'm quite serious. They are campaign money whores, bible beaters, and downright insane. "Rational" from one of them or their voters / followers, and you might as well teach your dog to speak Arabic or ask Santa Claus to bring you the State of Rhode Island for your Xmas.

 

[rareboy]

I'm sure that he'll issue a stay pending decision by a higher court.

He won't do it for the reasons the conservatives are citing, but it would be expected that until a landmark decision is made by the Supreme Court, there would be no suspension of Prop 8.

Of course, if he were to not issue a stay, it would be a great outcome, because thousands more couples would marry and have to be recognized by the state.

I guess the question at this point would be whether the decision has been crafted with the need to go before the Supreme Court, or is there any chance that SCOTUS may decline to hear the case and simply let this decision stand since California will fall off into the ocean once God sends an earthquake as punishment?

 

[CoolBlue71]

I don't want to hear another god damned word about conservatives who all hate us after this brilliant work by Ted Olson. Here is a guy who understands the meaning of equal protections, along with David Boies.

Nice job men!

Tell it to the Republican Party! Let them know you want the party's platform to be supportive, maybe champion, LGBT issues and same-sex marriage.

 

[BostonPirate]

Tell it to the Republican Party! Let them know you want the party's platform to be supportive, maybe champion, LGBT issues and same-sex marriage.

thank you.

One TOKEN republican who bucks the system does not erase all the state platforms OR The republican ballot innitiatives that made 31 states outlaw gay marriage.

I will say that Mr Olsen has redeemed himself to a degree, but since his wife was killed after Bush failed to protect us from the 9-11 attack, its easy to see why he has rethought some of his ideology, seeing as he was responsible for the overthrow of the american government by the bush regime and it's thug administration.

 

[laikaNYC]

Oh dear, now you're blaming Bush for 9/11? Even the Obama regime isn't that crazy.

 

[BostonPirate]

Oh dear, now you're blaming Bush for 9/11? Even the Obama regime isn't that crazy.

Blame and protect are two different things, and you cannot try to switch the game at this point.

Bush recieved a report that stated....Osama determined to attack the US... yet failed to even discuss it in his national defence meetings.

I know that republicans don't want to own the fact that one of the greatest attacks on our mainland occured as all branched of the gov't were controlled by the republicans, but as an independent voter, I promise you they have been held accountable by the voters and history was also held them accountable.

Who is to be BLAMED for the attacks? the loony fundie muslims.

Who failed to protect us from these loonies? that would be ther republican government headed by Mr Bush.

don't try to spin...

BUT I do want to say this on your behalf. You are talking more policy and less personal attacks are coming from you. I appreciate that, as it gives us real things to talk about besides who is an asshole and who is not.

so keep on representing your interests in this way and you will continue to get more respect from me, and I am sure a few others.

 

[construct]

THE TEST FOR A STAY

In order for a stay to be issues, the losing party must show:

(1) a reasonable probability that certiari will be granted;

(2) a significant possibility that the Court would reverse the judgment below; and

(3) a likelihood of irreparable harm, assuming the correctness of the applicant's position, if the judgment is not stayed.

(1) and (3) would be easy to show. (2) will not be hard, but that is where the discussion will be--a significant possibility that the Circuit Court would reverse the District Court's decision. "Significant possibility" is not a particularly high standard to meet.

I doubt that political considerations would play a part in Walker's ruling. I suppose if he has his eye on promotion, he might be quicker to issue the stay, but let's remember that his term is for life. He's not going to be thrown out by the voters, and he's not going to be impeached for any ruling or decision he might make.

 

[BostonPirate]

THE TEST FOR A STAY

In order for a stay to be issues, the losing party must show:

(1) a reasonable probability that certiari will be granted;

(2) a significant possibility that the Court would reverse the judgment below; and

(3) a likelihood of irreparable harm, assuming the correctness of the applicant's position, if the judgment is not stayed.

(1) and (3) would be easy to show. (2) will not be hard, but that is where the discussion will be--a significant possibility that the Circuit Court would reverse the District Court's decision. "Significant possibility" is not a particularly high standard to meet.

I doubt that political considerations would play a part in Walker's ruling. I suppose if he has his eye on promotion, he might be quicker to issue the stay, but let's remember that his term is for life. He's not going to be thrown out by the voters, and he's not going to be impeached for any ruling or decision he might make.

at first all parties concerned seemed to think the stay would happen. Now I am reading online that it may not happen.

what is your opinion on whether it will happen and whether it SHOULD happen.

 

[scream4ever]

http://ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=6166&MediaType=1&Category=26

Many experts seem to think that no matter what, this ruling will be very hard to overturn.

 

[construct]

at first all parties concerned seemed to think the stay would happen. Now I am reading online that it may not happen.

what is your opinion on whether it will happen and whether it SHOULD happen.

I think it will happen. The test is a factor test. It's not whether each factor has been met or not. So long as that factor has a serious claim to exist, it's considered. In this case, the threshold for a "significant possibility" of reversal might be a little lower because the "irreparable harm" would be so great if the stay were not issued.

The window of opportunity for gay marriages would be long enough for thousands of marriages to take place. That would be considerable harm to proponents of Prop 8, and the trauma of losing on appeal would be irreparable for those couples.

My own opinion is that the stay should be issued (so long as the proponents put forward a reasonable brief, and I have every reason to believe that they will).

 

[construct]

http://ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=6166&MediaType=1&Category=26

Many experts seem to think that no matter what, this ruling will be very hard to overturn.

That is the judgment of the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. The other experts in the article (and in its cited source) supporting the decision are pointing to the extensive factual findings. Those will be helpful to the appellate court, but that alone is not conclusive about whether the case will be reversed. It merely shows that the Ninth Circuit will have an extensive record of Walker's judgment as to the credibility of each piece of evidence.

Appellate courts are very deferential to the judgment of the trial court with respect to the credibility of evidence because the trial court was right there and actually saw it. The trial court saw the body language and heard the tone of voice of the witnesses, so the findings of fact are given a lot of weight.

 

[construct]

Thankfully, Judge Walker's findings of fact were extensive, meticulous, and multi-faceted. He touched upon so many important points that, put together, make it very difficult to reach any conclusion other than finding prop. 8 to be unconstitutional.

I don't think the appeal will turn on findings of fact. I think it will turn on the conclusions of law. For example, I raised the issue earlier in this thread about the contradictory precedent in Baker v. Nelson 291 Minn. 310 (Minn. 1971), 409 U.S. 810 (1972). This is a state supreme court case that was summarily dismissed for lack of a federal question. Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972). At that time, the Supreme Court was required to give an opinion on every case that was appealed to them. That Supreme Court decision makes the lower court's opinion is a decision on the merits.

 

[construct]

I just looked. Baker is not even mentioned in Walker's opinion. I think I'd hope it will be brought up on appeal. That case needs to be overturned.

 

[scream4ever]

^^^It would've been even more harmful if the Supreme Court even agreed to hear the case.