Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal

[Redress]

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

AP 4am-The federal judge who overturned California's same-sex marriage ban has more bad news for the measure's sponsors: he not only is unwilling to keep gay couples from marrying beyond next Wednesday, he doubts the ban's backers have the right to challenge his ruling.

...

Based on his interpretation of those rules, it appears the ban's sponsors can only appeal his decision with the backing of either Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger or Attorney General Jerry Brown, Walker said. But that seems unlikely as both officials refused to defend Proposition 8 in Walker's court and said last week they see no reason why gay couples should not be able to tie the knot now.

Walker also turned aside arguments that marriages performed now could be thrown into legal chaos if Proposition 8 is later upheld by an appeals court. He pointed to the 18,000 same-sex couples who married legally in the five months that gay marriage was legal in California as proof.

Now, the article does point out that legal scholars do not necessarily agree with him that this won't be looked at by the 9th Circuit, it does raise the very real possibility. It's a California law, and California is not defending the law. I would say the odds of it not making it to the 9th for an appeal is slight, but it would amuse and please me no end it the 9th said they will not hear it.

Now, on the subject of the stay, I think that should remain in place until the 9th renders some sort of ruling. While "legal chaos" is probably an exaggeration, I think it is just easier to wait it out.

 

[Hicup]

I haven't read the court transripts, so I couldn't tell you whether the respondents preserved any objection for an appeal. I find it very difficult to believe that any objection (Preserving an appeal) on any matter of law in this case won't be enough to have the 9th hear it. Even objections about entering in evidence, or excluding it, are matters of law, and can be enough to force an appeal, so I doubt the judge watched all his P's and Q's..


Tim-

 

[Taylor]

I find it very difficult to believe that any objection (Preserving an appeal) on any matter of law in this case won't be enough to have the 9th hear it. Even objections about entering in evidence, or excluding it, are matters of law, and can be enough to force an appeal, so I doubt the judge watched all his P's and Q's..

It's not about anything to do with legal arguments, Ahnold and the State aren't going to appeal, and for some reason Walker believes that the Prop 8 proponents that had standing to defend the case, do not have standing to appeal the case. I don't know what his reasoning is.

 

[Harshaw]

A Circuit Court of Appeals does not have the discretion to decide not to hear a duly-filed appeal.

And if they did, it would only make the situation worse, because they will not have decided anything about the merits of the case, thus leaving the issues in limbo. Which only makes for a festering cesspool of resentment.

 

[Demon of Light]

Certainly the people who initiated the referendum have every right to appeal, but if the judge's argument is backed at the very least it would mean this bastardization of the Constitution and infringement on state's rights will never make it outside California.

Honestly though, I would rather not see one miscarriage of justice met with another.

 

[Hicup]

Certainly the people who initiated the referendum have every right to appeal, but if the judge's argument is backed at the very least it would mean this bastardization of the Constitution and infringement on state's rights will never make it outside California.

Honestly though, I would rather not see one miscarriage of justice met with another.

yeah it looks like the gay's sued the state of CA, not the backers of Prop 8. Once Prop 8 became law, it is up to the state to defend the law. I think the backer of Prop 8, unless named in the suit in Walkers court, have no basis for appeal? Just a guess though, not 100% sure about CA court rules.


Tim-

 

[RightinNYC]

I believe the issue is that there's a circuit split as to whether intervenors in a case need to have Article III standing or whether they need only satisfy a lesser standing requirement.

This could actually hurt the proponents of gay marriage - if the losers in this case can't appeal, then Judge Walker's decision is just a trial court opinion that will have little to no weight outside of his area.

 

[Harshaw]

I believe the issue is that there's a circuit split as to whether intervenors in a case need to have Article III standing or whether they need only satisfy a lesser standing requirement.

This could actually hurt the proponents of gay marriage - if the losers in this case can't appeal, then Judge Walker's decision is just a trial court opinion that will have little to no weight outside of his area.

Which is why it's nearly impossible that the process will not go forward.

 

[Navy Pride]

Like I said in the other thread I am willing to accept the decision of the SCOTUS but there should not be any gay marriages until that decision is rendered because there is a real chance the Gay judges decision will be overturned then you will have utter chaos...Allowing gay marriage to take place is just another example of activism.....Its really to bad..........

By the way I did not hear any of you "Feel Good Liberals" take me up on my offer to accept the decision of the SCOTUS...Why am I not surprised??????

 

[danarhea]

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News



Now, the article does point out that legal scholars do not necessarily agree with him that this won't be looked at by the 9th Circuit, it does raise the very real possibility. It's a California law, and California is not defending the law. I would say the odds of it not making it to the 9th for an appeal is slight, but it would amuse and please me no end it the 9th said they will not hear it.

Now, on the subject of the stay, I think that should remain in place until the 9th renders some sort of ruling. While "legal chaos" is probably an exaggeration, I think it is just easier to wait it out.

If the judge made the ruling based on interpreting Federal law, then yes, it CAN be appealed.

 

[Redress]

If the judge made the ruling based on interpreting Federal law, then yes, it CAN be appealed.

See RightInNYC's post, as he kinda breaks down the reasoning. I agree the appeal will almost certainly be heard, and should be.

 

[danarhea]

See RightInNYC's post, as he kinda breaks down the reasoning. I agree the appeal will almost certainly be heard, and should be.

There is no arguing with RightInNYC on this, or any other legal matter either. I found that out the hard way, by getting my ass kicked a few times by him. LOL.

 

[Redress]

There is no arguing with RightInNYC on this, or any other legal matter either. I found that out the hard way, by getting my ass kicked a few times by him. LOL.

It's a lesson we all have to learn the hard, painful way.

 

[Captain America]

Like I said in the other thread I am willing to accept the decision of the SCOTUS but there should not be any gay marriages until that decision is rendered because there is a real chance the Gay judges decision will be overturned then you will have utter chaos...Allowing gay marriage to take place is just another example of activism.....Its really to bad..........

By the way I did not hear any of you "Feel Good Liberals" take me up on my offer to accept the decision of the SCOTUS...Why am I not surprised??????

Hello old friend. I never considered myself a feel good liberal but I do understand that, on occassion, you have viewed me as such. I suppose I am blessed that you even take the time to dialog with me, what with so many people, these days, turning away from so many others.

But I will be the first to agree with you. If the SCOTUS says something is law, it's law. Don't mean I gotta like the law. There are a few laws I already don't like. But we are a nation and a people of laws. I respect the law and I find it a virtue to conduct my life obeying the law's of the land.

If it's something that I truly cannot tolerate, I will lobby to change said law, all the while, obeying that law.

All that being said, it really ain't my battle anyways. I just don't care who marry's who. My only interest in the issue in the first place is founded on my belief that "liberty and justice is for all" is supposed to mean, "liberty and justice for all." Perhaps that is because I was raised saying that every morning from the first grade on, and it kinda stuck in my heart. And if I am to error, I choose to error on the side of liberty.

Myself, I married a woman. That's the way I roll. All my babies, watched 'em pop out myself. Never an abortion on my watch. Six years in the Navy serving the best I know how, never got cornered by a queer. (Maybe that's because I'm too damn ugly but I digress.) But I do know some gay folks. And I just love them to pieces. I can't let my southern, engrained, homophobia prevent me from taking any happiness away from them.

I used to be exactly like you chief. I just changed. Can't say exactly when or where, I just did. Maybe when the issue took on a personal face to me and I knew good people directly affected by it. Maybe it was just a slow awakening. I used to tell the very best queer jokes. I just can't bring myself around to it anymore.

But I do respect your opinion you old salt. I just don't look at it like that no mo'.

Other than that, truth be told, I don't even care if monkey's marry giraffes.

 

[TheNextEra]

By the way I did not hear any of you "Feel Good Liberals" take me up on my offer to accept the decision of the SCOTUS...Why am I not surprised??????

Why should liberals take you up on your offer when even YOU won't accept the SCOTUS ruling on allowing abortions.

Put up or shut up.

 

[apdst]

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News



Now, the article does point out that legal scholars do not necessarily agree with him that this won't be looked at by the 9th Circuit, it does raise the very real possibility. It's a California law, and California is not defending the law. I would say the odds of it not making it to the 9th for an appeal is slight, but it would amuse and please me no end it the 9th said they will not hear it.

Now, on the subject of the stay, I think that should remain in place until the 9th renders some sort of ruling. While "legal chaos" is probably an exaggeration, I think it is just easier to wait it out.

Yeah, who cares about equal representation under the law. Right?

 

[Redress]

Yeah, who cares about equal representation under the law. Right?

Once again, straw man.

 

[Demon of Light]

I believe the issue is that there's a circuit split as to whether intervenors in a case need to have Article III standing or whether they need only satisfy a lesser standing requirement.

Well, do you think there is an argument for Article III standing? On some level since the amendment was approved in a referendum a challenge could be made on that basis. When a matter approved by popular vote is alleged to come into conflict with the Constitution doesn't that sort of give them standing on that basis alone?

 

[apdst]

Once again, straw man.

Once again, anything that blows your idea out of the water is a strawman.

 

[The Prof]

moonbeam is not gonna be ag anymore after november

and kamala harris is an extremely troubled candidate, even here in the uber liberal bay area

the progressive ag by the bay is too much seen as personification of sf's soft-on-crime extremism

there have been a number of hi publicity issues with ms kamala, and sf's SANCTUARY status comes into play

particularly, the edwin ramos situation must perforce rip at every mother's heart, african american, hispanic, gay...

ms kamala may win sf but she's gonna have a lot of trouble out here in the east bay

and a dem doubted in walnut creek has little chance state wide

ask john garamendi, ellen tauscher, bill baker, richard pombo, jerry mcnerney, all of whom have been my rep

i'm surprised his honor (ap, too) can't see a move ahead, neglects even to put forth the effort

we're looking at a new gub out here, as well, and that's 50-50 right now

2010 Attorney General's Race : SFGate: Politics Blog

 

[ptif219]

It appears the unbiased gay judge is again showing how he is unbiased.

 

[Deuce]

It appears the unbiased gay judge is again showing how he is unbiased.

You just think he is biased because he doesn't agree with you. He has proven himself many times to be impartial. You're just another "activist judge = someone I disagree with" conservative.

edit: in fact, anyone who thinks this judge should have recused himself is invalidating their own case and doesn't realize it

 

[RightinNYC]

FWIW, it's less that I actually know what the hell I'm talking about and more that I just came across a couple articles about it:

Dorf on Law: Ballot Initiative Sponsor Standing

 

[ptif219]

You just think he is biased because he doesn't agree with you. He has proven himself many times to be impartial. You're just another "activist judge = someone I disagree with" conservative.

edit: in fact, anyone who thinks this judge should have recused himself is invalidating their own case and doesn't realize it

Nice try but he has nothing here but an opinion stated to promote gay marriage. He is trying to influence th 9th circuit to deny an appeal

 

[Orion]

I agree with the judge's original decision, but I also agree that if the other levels of court aren't allowed to weigh in then the ruling will not carry much weight as a precedent for decisions outside CA.