- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,993
- Reaction score
- 60,560
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
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.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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??????
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??????
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?
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.
Once again, straw man.
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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?