|
Post by Vene on Jun 17, 2010 13:13:57 GMT -5
Walker also has to decide how broad, or narrow, his decision is. His decision could be very narrow and only rule on the California amendment, or it could affect laws in all states. Does he actually have the judicial authority to make a ruling for other states?
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jun 17, 2010 13:31:51 GMT -5
Walker also has to decide how broad, or narrow, his decision is. His decision could be very narrow and only rule on the California amendment, or it could affect laws in all states. Does he actually have the judicial authority to make a ruling for other states? No, but (as I understand it) he can still rule in favor of the plaintiffs two ways; first by deciding that Prop 8 was passed mostly as a result of "political animus" against gays, second by ruling that allowing marriage for straights but not gays is discriminatory and thus unconstitutional. Either way, Prop 8 is stricken down. If he rules in favor of the latter, initially the decision is meaningless outside of California and changes nothing because his interpretation of the law only holds in California. However, it does set precedent that can influence both other state courts as well as the Supreme Court.Edit: Actually, scratch that - now I'm not sure. The case is being tried in federal court, not state court, so now I'm unsure whether the latter ruling would affect California, the whole 9th Circuit or the entire nation.
|
|
|
Post by big_electron on Jun 17, 2010 13:42:45 GMT -5
Wasn't there a lot of LDS propaganda behind Prop 8?
Wasn't gay marriage legal shortly before Prop 8? What a bitch! First they marry, then it's not legal.
"Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jun 17, 2010 16:00:18 GMT -5
To answer your question Tiger:
This trial will only affect California's discriminatory marriage provision. There are three tiers of courts at the federal level: The Supreme Court, the Circuit Courts, and the District Courts. The cases that the Supreme Court decide set binding precedent on the Circuit Courts and District Courts below it. The cases that a Circuit Court decides set binding precedent on the District Courts below it.
Even if a judge on a Circuit or District court disagrees, he must rule according to the precedent established by the Courts above him.
The case in question is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and no matter at what level it finds itself in the federal court system, it is dealing only with the California amendment. Even if the Supreme Court strikes it down as well, it is only striking down the California amendment. But because the Supreme Court sets precedent on all other federal courts, it will, through precedent, have the effect of striking down all similar laws.
The case is currently in District Court which sets no precedent. Judge Walker may only strike down the California ban.
The 9th Circuit could strike down the ban in California, which would set precedent in all District Courts of the 9th Circuit (those in California, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands). If the Supreme Court strikes it down, then it will set precedent in all Circuit Courts (i.e. the entire country.)
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jun 17, 2010 16:08:37 GMT -5
To answer your question Tiger: This trial will only affect California's discriminatory marriage provision. There are three tiers of courts at the federal level: The Supreme Court, the Circuit Courts, and the District Courts. The cases that the Supreme Court decide set binding precedent on the Circuit Courts and District Courts below it. The cases that a Circuit Court decides set binding precedent on the District Courts below it. Even if a judge on a Circuit or District court disagrees, he must rule according to the precedent established by the Courts above him. The case in question is Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and no matter at what level it finds itself in the federal court system, it is dealing only with the California amendment. Even if the Supreme Court strikes it down as well, it is only striking down the California amendment. But because the Supreme Court sets precedent on all other federal courts, it will, through precedent, have the effect of striking down all similar laws. The case is currently in District Court which sets no precedent. Judge Walker may only strike down the California ban. The 9th Circuit could strike down the ban in California, which would set precedent in all District Courts of the 9th Circuit (those in California, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands). If the Supreme Court strikes it down, then it will set precedent in all Circuit Courts (i.e. the entire country.) Basically correct. If Judge Walker rules that the ban is unconstitutional it will only affect the status of same-sex marriages in California. However, if the Supreme Court decides that a state ban on same-sex marriages conflicts with the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, then it invalidates all state bans on same-sex marriage. One of the major parts of the case is whether or not sexual orientation is a protected class. Some lower courts have determined that it is, but the Supreme Court has not decided that it is yet. If the Supreme Court rules that sexual orientation is a protected class, then it sets a precedent that the state needs a very compelling reason to pass laws which discriminate against LGBT Americans.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Jun 17, 2010 16:11:24 GMT -5
And all of America will rejoice. At least the parts that count anyways.
Ironbite-HEY FUNDIES! YOU DON'T EVEN REGISTAR ANYMORE!
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jun 17, 2010 16:14:34 GMT -5
That's pretty much what I said...if the Supreme Court rules in Perry's favor, it will directly strike down the California ban and through precedent strike down all similar bans.
If in their decision they decide that sexual orientation is a protected class, that would also be binding on lower courts and would also be a HUGE bonus. I have heard though that Boies and Olson are not making the case that sexual orientation is a suspect class, however. I think they are approaching it purely from the rational basis argument. Although this would not preclude the Supreme Court from finding sexual orientation to be a protected class anyway.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jun 17, 2010 16:59:52 GMT -5
That's pretty much what I said...if the Supreme Court rules in Perry's favor, it will directly strike down the California ban and through precedent strike down all similar bans. If in their decision they decide that sexual orientation is a protected class, that would also be binding on lower courts and would also be a HUGE bonus. I have heard though that Boies and Olson are not making the case that sexual orientation is a suspect class, however. I think they are approaching it purely from the rational basis argument. Although this would not preclude the Supreme Court from finding sexual orientation to be a protected class anyway. Actually to my knowledge they are arguing that it's a suspect class. They went through everything that's needed, which I mentioned in the original post: immutable characteristics, political powerlessness, history of discrimination, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 25, 2010 6:50:16 GMT -5
I was just now reading through the transcripts and saw that even the defendants' (the Pro-Prop8 dildos) own witness stated on the stand that allowing same sex marriage would improve the lives of same-sex couples and produce other societal benefits.
I laughed.
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Jun 25, 2010 7:51:30 GMT -5
I was just now reading through the transcripts and saw that even the defendants' (the Pro-Prop8 dildos) own witness stated on the stand that allowing same sex marriage would improve the lives of same-sex couples and produce other societal benefits. I laughed. Look into how hard they tried to keep their own witnesses from testitfying. Turns out pretty much nothing supported their position, even when it was cherry picked to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Jun 25, 2010 13:35:51 GMT -5
Where are the Official Transcripts for this last bit? I never got that email on them that I requested from the site..
|
|