| Red Mosquito http://archive.theskyiscrape.com/ |
|
| Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court http://archive.theskyiscrape.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=92232 |
Page 3 of 5 |
| Author: | punkdavid [ Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
Chris_H_2 wrote: Also, another thing that bothered me was the Judge's dicta that the 7,000,000 people that voted for Prop 8 were largely motivated by bigotry or ignorance. To be sure, I'm fine with the outcome. But this statement by a gay judge, without the electorate testifying, caused me to question why the judge felt the need to include it. Isn't it more accurate to say that the judge was looking for a rational basis (ANY rational basis) for the denial of gay marriages, and finding none, by process of elimination, determined the voters' motivations were largely bigotry or ignorance, especially since the motivations of the proponents were demonstrated to be bigotry and the promotion of ignorance? |
|
| Author: | punkdavid [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
Fait accompli... http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.c ... hp?ref=fpa Motion To Stay Prop 8 Ruling Denied; Stay Will Lift Next Week Rachel Slajda | August 12, 2010, 3:42PM A federal judge in California today lifted his stay on same-sex marriages, effective Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. Pacific time. Judge Vaughn Walker ruled last week that Proposition 8, which defined marriage in California as heterosexual, is unconstitutional. He issued a temporary stay -- meaning same-sex couples can't get married yet -- and today ruled that his stay will continue until next Wednesday. After that, gay couples will be able to marry in California. That is, unless the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court which will hear the appeal of Prop 8 supporters, issues its own stay in the meantime. "Because proponents fail to satisfy any of the factors necessary to warrant a stay, the court denies a stay except for a limited time solely in order to permit the court of appeals to consider the issue in an orderly manner," Walker wrote in his ruling. Here's the ruling: |
|
| Author: | Electromatic [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
As if the world would freaking end if the Prop 8 supporters didn't get a stay from the 9th circuit..... Oh no... the sanctity of marriage decried Mel Gibson... |
|
| Author: | punkdavid [ Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
The opinion is really a beautiful thing to read. In addition to shooting down any idea that proponents a) have a likelihood of success upon appeal, and b) will suffer ANY harm at all absent a stay, the judge also adequately addresses the standing issue, and gave a very damning analysis that shows that proponents, absent a named defendant joining in an appeal, will probably not even have standing to appeal the case. No half-measures from this judge. He is just 100% on the money on every detail and question surrounding gay marriage bans. The world needed this. |
|
| Author: | punkdavid [ Fri Aug 20, 2010 3:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
This is an interesting analysis of the standing issue from a Cornell Law professor. http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2010/08/ballot ... nding.html Monday, August 09, 2010 Ballot Initiative Sponsor Standing In my latest FindLaw column I consider the possibility of backlash against Judge Walker's ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Although I basically agree with Judge Walker on the merits, I nonetheless remain quite nervous about this case getting to the SCOTUS too early: Either we'll lose and lock in a bad decision for a decade or more, or we'll win and risk a constitutional amendment. I don't say that backlash is inevitable but I do think the risk is real. I note briefly in the column that Judge Walker had one way to avoid a decision on the merits: He could have held that there was no live case or controversy. The key state defendants declined to defend Prop 8, but Judge Walker permitted Prop 8's sponsors to intervene to do so. Yet that decision was dubious in light of Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona. Speaking for a unanimous Court there, Justice Ginsburg expressed "grave doubts" about the Article III standing of the sponsors of a ballot initiative to defend it when its constitutionality is challenged. Here I want to express some of my own doubts about the Supreme Court's doubts. To translate, I think that the 9th Circuit was right in allowing a ballot initiative's sponsors to have standing to defend it when the relevant govt officials refuse to defend it. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I was a law clerk to 9th Cir Judge Stephen Reinhardt when he wrote the decision finding such standing, and about which Justice Ginsburg expressed her grave doubts. I am not a big fan of ballot initiatives, but if a state permits them it is typically because of a preference for direct democracy over republicanism. The risk in the latter is that elected officials do not identify the common good sufficiently closely with public opinion. (Again, I think that this is a virtue of republicanism, but the premise of the ballot initiative process is contrary.) The ballot initiative process is available precisely because the People cannot always trust their elected representatives to carry out their will. Thus, when elected officials decline to defend a ballot initiative in court, they are directly frustrating the whole point of the ballot initiative process. Perhaps that is their prerogative, but if so, it makes sense for someone else to come in to defend the ballot initiative's constitutionality. To my mind, this situation is closely analogous to the one the Court faced in Dickerson v. United States. There, the appeals court had sustained the defendant's conviction on the ground that a federal statute had overruled the Miranda decision. The Clinton Justice Dep't declined to defend the statute, and so the Supreme Court appointed a leading academic critic of Miranda to do so. True, there was a technical difference: The U.S. continued to be a party, arguing that even under Miranda, the defendant's conviction should be affirmed. But the only real contested issue in the SCOTUS--and the issue the Court took the case to decide--was the constitutionality of the statute. Modern standing doctrine was more or less made up about 40 years ago. The underlying textual basis for it--the requirement that there be a "case" or "controversy"--seems readily satisfied by a contest pitting people who want to challenge a law's constitutionality against the sponsors of the ballot initiative that led to the law's enactment. So to recap: I agree with Judge Walker on the merits; I also think that given the stakes, perhaps he should have tried to duck the merits; given what the SCOTUS said in Arizonans for Official English, he could have ducked by finding no standing for the sponsors of Prop 8; but I also think that the dicta in Arizonans for Official English is wrong (to the extent that mere grave doubts can be wrong). |
|
| Author: | lord vedder [ Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
As good as thread as any put this headline: Justice Department will no longer defend DOMA in legal challenges By: CNN Wire Staff Washington (CNN)– President Barack Obama has ordered the Justice Department to stop defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between a man and woman, according to a statement Wednesday from Attorney General Eric Holder. "The president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," Holder said. The key provisions in the law "fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional." "Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the (Justice Department) not to defend the statute" in two pending cases in New York state, Holder said. "I fully concur with the president's determination." --------------- One way or the other I think the gay marriage question will be one that will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
lord vedder wrote: One way or the other I think the gay marriage question will be one that will ultimately be decided by Anthony Kennedy.
|
|
| Author: | dkfan9 [ Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
|
|
|
| Author: | Skitch Patterson [ Wed Feb 23, 2011 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
Green Habit wrote: lord vedder wrote: One way or the other I think the gay marriage question will be one that will ultimately be decided by the tarot |
|
| Author: | dkfan9 [ Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
lol |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
Skitch Patterson wrote: Green Habit wrote: lord vedder wrote: One way or the other I think the gay marriage question will be one that will ultimately be decided by the tarot  One man, one woman...uh oh. 
|
|
| Author: | Skitch Patterson [ Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
Green Habit wrote: Skitch Patterson wrote: Green Habit wrote: lord vedder wrote: One way or the other I think the gay marriage question will be one that will ultimately be decided by the tarot One man, one woman...uh oh. nah, thats just a really large clitoris. |
|
| Author: | dkfan9 [ Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
skitch, you're really on in this thread |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
dkfan9 wrote: skitch, you're really on in this thread I thought of the possibility that he would think of a threesome line with the figure in the middle. Even then, his wit is at least one step ahead.
|
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
Getcha popcorn ready for tomorrow morning/afternoon. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ow/252642/ Quote: Key Proposition 8 Ruling Expected Tomorrow It should be noted that of the three judges that were assigned to this case on the Ninth Circuit, one of them is Stephen Reinhardt, who has long been assigned by the right wing as a boogeyman of theirs. Just for my curiosity, I'm also interested in how another assigned judge, N Randy Smith of Idaho, will side in this case.By Steve Clemons Feb 6 2012, 1:57 PM ET The 9th Circuit Court has just issued a release that it expects the Court to file an opinion tomorrow morning at 10:00 am in the case of "Perry v. Brown" (case numbers 10-16696 and 11-16577) regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the denial of a motion to vacate the lower court judgment in the case. The release says that "A summary of the opinion prepared by court staff will be posted along with the opinion." Here is a pretty good backgrounder on the legal back-and-forth that has taken place since the passage of California's Proposition 8 which made the following line part of California's Constitution: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Because this proposition would take away rights previously granted to those who married under California's marriage laws which for a window of time recognized same sex marriages, the law was later declared unconstitutional by a panel of judges. In an appeal, parties supportive of Proposition 8 then challenged that US District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, who is himself gay, should have recused himself in the judgment. So, tomorrow's decision should clarify whether Vaughn Walker was in the right or wrong in participating in a judgment on this case. 10:00 am PST -- should be interesting. Also, looking back at this thread I might have some comments about the case that PD posted a while back. I'll likely wait until after this opinion gets released, though. |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
Everyone just crashed the Ninth Circuit's website looking for the ruling, but it appears that they affirmed Walker's ruling of finding Prop 8 unconstitutional. EDIT: Thank you, SCOTUSblog. http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-conten ... 2-7-12.pdf |
|
| Author: | Chris_H_2 [ Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
I'm shocked . . . |
|
| Author: | Electromatic [ Tue Feb 07, 2012 6:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
So it is indeed unconstitutional. What does that mean going forward now that the language is struck from the constitution? |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
Chris_H_2 wrote: I'm shocked . . . Reinhardt actually was quite restraining. I would copy and paste relevant parts but for some reason I get gobbledygook from the PDF when I do that.
|
|
| Author: | cutuphalfdead [ Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Prop 8 Struck Down in Federal Court |
This is a pretty good read. |
|
| Page 3 of 5 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|