welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

prop 8 overturned
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

that 'm' would be entirely coincidental.

i consider it collateral damnage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17282
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Major Tom wrote:
mouse wrote:
yeah, that's just getting ridiculous. we can still vote - we just can't vote for something that is legally indefensible.


but, but, that's the thing -- we can (and apparently do).

and then 'we' get our day in court, by proxy, where the legally indefensible is, nonetheless, carefully considered (we would hope), judged and (not self-righteously, mind you) righteously tossed out on 'our' ear.

it might have been nicer for the carpetbagging opponents of the lifting of the ban on gay marriage had the judge penned his opinion with a heavy hand and gritted teeth, but i think that's one of the things i like best about america -- it isn't incumbent upon justice to commiserate with morons.


very true - i meant, of course, we can vote for it, but we can't just expect it to become unchallenged law.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShadowCell



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Posts: 6080
Location: California

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pfeh

the 9th Circuit court has indefinitely banned same-sex marriages pending appeal, but they have agreed to start hearing arguments in December
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3316

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reasoning behind it is solid. We know its going to go to appeal, its a lot better to just fight it out all the way and win rather than having people married, then not, then married, then not as the whole appeals process sorts itself out.


Social change in america is slow.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17282
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

not just 'agreed to hear' - specified an expedited hearing. and the first thing the pro-prop-8ers have to do to is demonstrate they have standing to even make the appeal.

which could. ultimately, be the 9th's way of being sure the whole thing is settled asap. the governor and attorney general have already stated that they have no intention of enforcing 8 and are happy with the ruling. if no one else is able to demonstrate that they have standing to appeal the case - it can't go on to the supreme court.

of course, one interest people had in seeing this go to the supremes was that if they ruled against prop 8, it would pretty much cut the legs out from under any law that made same-sex marriage illegal - which would make it legal throughout the country. i don't know if stopping with a california decision will do that. but of course, there is no guarantee that the supremes will uphold the decision.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The temporary stay on same-sex marriages imposed by the 9th Circuit Court is a very good thing. If they didn't grant it, the pro-8ers would've requested the same stay from the Supreme Court, who would have been nearly guaranteed to grant it until they could review everything, which is a significantly longer time frame. If we can cut months out of this step of the process, that's a very good thing.
_________________
“Yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation”
yields falsehood when preceded by its quotation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Won't it go to supreme court anyway?
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17282
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i don't know that it can be. in this case, the supreme court would function as an appellate court - that is, it is reviewing a case that one or the other party feels was not judged appropriately, because the original judge made some error. note that it has to be one of the two parties involved that requests the appeal, or (in some cases) a third party that can demonstrate that they have standing - that is, that they are directly impacted by the decision. to put it bluntly - you have to prove you have a dog in the fight.

if the pro-8ers can't demonstrate they have standing, then they can't file an appeal - not to the 9th circuit, or any other appellate court. the nominal defendant (the governor of california) has already declared he is happy with the decision and will not appeal it. the anti-8ers, who won, are obviously not going to appeal it. so if the 9th circuit rules the pro-8ers don't have standing, there isn't anyone who has any interest in or legal basis for taking it to the supreme court. i don't think they can just hopscotch over the 9th circuit; i think things have to work their way up the ladder. if the 9th circuit rules that they do have standing, that's another issue - in that case, the 9th's decision could be appealed up to the supreme court.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Willem



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 6306
Location: wasteland style

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, if the 9th decide they don't have a standing, it's over? They can't take that decision to the Supreme Court?
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12256
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Willem wrote:
So, if the 9th decide they don't have a standing, it's over? They can't take that decision to the Supreme Court?

Nope, because they don't even have standing to bring the case before the 9th circuit court. It would be deciding that they have no grounds to act as the defendants.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think maybe they can appeal it to SCOTUS, but the conventional wisdom is that the supremes would likely find the same on no-standing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10800
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah... couldn't they appeal the decision that they don't have standing? I wish I knew more about the law. Sad Back to college!
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No, I'm not sure that they can. If it's determined that they don't have standing to appeal, it may well mean they didn't have standing in Walker's trial either, so his original decision gets vacated and the case gets kicked back down for a different judgment (by walker still, I think). if arnold refuses to fight again, we get a default for the plaintiff. the downside is that it would mean the decision that goes on the books would only set precedent (and be enforceable) in california.
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

they had been granted status as "intervenors" in the trial over which walker presided, whatever that means -- so they had standing there.

and that, apparently, is half the stepping stone they want to use to argue continued standing; the other half being the absence of appropriate representation of the people's will in light of the state's reticence to defend the ballot initiative.

seems to be a matter of some discussion.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202466582074



regardless of the continuity of the "intervenors'" status, they were joined with Schwartzenegger in the Walker trial and were not the only defendants -- i haven't noticed talk of the possibility of outright vacating this verdict.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nathan



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6282

PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know they were granted status in the walker trial, and I do not suspect they will be found not to have standing. BUT, if that does happen to be the decision, then the fact that they lacked standing to appeal will likely be taken to mean they lacked standing to intervene, so by granting them that standing in the initial, Walker invalidated the trial. So it's a do-over, with non-adverse parties.

And yeah, Arnold and the gov. were also defendants (perhaps the only legit defendants), but because they think Prop 8 is a load of shit, they chose to provide evidence but not refute the plaintiffs' legal theories. Basically saying, "ok, here's the evidence the law is based on... but we agree that's it's illegal."

For further discussion by people know what they're talking about, check: Mike Dorf, Vik Amar, volokh, scotusblog, etc etc Siam
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group