|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Nov 17, 2011 10:18:17 GMT -5
==UPDATE==
The 72-page unanimous decision by the Court indicates that ballot sponsors do have the right, under state law, to file appeals on behalf of the state in federal court.
This case will now likely go to the Supreme Court within the next few years and may very well decide the fate of marriage rights for same-sex couples nationwide.
===
At 10:00AM PST, the California Supreme Court will issue its response to the certified question posed to it by the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in regards to Perry v. Brown, the Amendment XIV challenge to Proposition 8, which stripped the gay and lesbian citizens of California of their state-constitutional right to marry.
The federal District Court for the Northern District of California ruled the ballot measure unconstitutional and the Governor and Attorney General of California, the officially named defendants decided not to appeal this decision. The ballot measure's sponsors appealed in their place, which is generally not allowed under federal law unless state law grants ballot measure proponents the authority to do so. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to clarify state law on this matter.
The California Supreme Court will either decide that they do NOT have standing, in which case the 9th Circuit will most likely vacate the appeal, leaving the original ruling intact (but only applicable to California), or that they DO have standing, in which case the 9th Circuit will most likely rule on the merits of the case (whether or not bans on same-sex marriage violate the federal constitution). If this is the case, there is the strong likelihood that the Supreme Court will still vacate the appeal on standing grounds, leaving the original District Court ruling intact.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 17, 2011 12:02:28 GMT -5
now explain that in layman's terms
|
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Nov 17, 2011 12:17:30 GMT -5
now explain that in layman's terms Some people wanted to appeal the California District ruling on Proposition 8, but the people that were actually in control of the case did not want to. There is a law in that keeps the people who want the appeal from taking the case over, but it is possible that that law does not apply. Therefore, the California Supreme Court is deciding whether or not that law applies can make the appeal. Basically the California Supreme Court is deciding whether or not the Proposition 8 overturn can be appealed to a higher court. If they say yes, we can expect further appeal. Otherwise, there is no appeal, and the original ruling stands. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Nov 17, 2011 12:20:07 GMT -5
The trial judge said Prop 8 is unconstitutional. The governor and state attorney general declined to appeal that decision. So instead, the groups behind Prop 8 appealed. The 9th Circuit heard 2 sets of arguments - one on whether or not Prop 8 is constitutional, one on whether the people behind Prop 8 had standing to actually appeal. (Standing meaning whether they were harmed by losing the trial court decision.) Since it makes no sense to rule on the constitutionality if the proponents did not have standing, and standing in this case is based on state law, the 9th Cir asked the Cal Supreme Court to decide whether the proponents could actually appeal. That is the decision that the Cal Supreme Court will release today - whether the proponents could actually appeal.
If the Cal Supreme Court comes back and says the proponents could not appeal, the trial court decision stands. However, since it was only a district court, the holding is only binding in California. (However, the decision could be "influential" in other federal courts.)
If the Cal Supreme Court says the proponents could sue, the 9th Cir will later come out with a decision on the constitutionality of Prop 8. That holding would be binding throughout the 9th Cir (Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Washington).
Of course, the decision would likely be appealed to the US Supreme Court. They could either rule on the merits (which would be binding nationwide) or rule on standing (which means the constitutionality of Prop 8 would not be discussed).
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Nov 17, 2011 13:05:20 GMT -5
The decision is in, and the California Supreme Court has decided they DO have standing to appeal.
This is not binding on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but it is widely expected that they will follow the California Supreme Court's suggestion.
A ruling on the merits should be expected within the next few weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Nov 17, 2011 13:10:51 GMT -5
The decision is in, and the California Supreme Court has decided they DO have standing to appeal. This is not binding on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but it is widely expected that they will follow the California Supreme Court's suggestion. A ruling on the merits should be expected within the next few weeks. I just woke up, this is fantastic news, wooo! Thank you Supreme Court of California, thank you for the early 23rd birthday present. Thank you for giving the homophobic fucks standing so we can take this to the SCOTUS. Thank you for letting LGBTs keep this trojan horse against the lunatics. -grabs everybody and starts dancing- |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Nov 17, 2011 13:15:48 GMT -5
This is actually riskier. A ruling that they didn't have standing would have ended this ordeal within a matter of months, leaving California with marriage equality. It's neither good nor bad news; it just indicates where this case will be heading.
There is a lot more at stake now. The Supreme Court could rule that there is no right to marriage equality...precedent we could be stuck with for decades and that would hinder progress at the state level, or they could rule that marriage equality is a constitutional right and it would apply to the entire country. Or they could reject the reasoning of the CA Supreme Court anyway and leave the original decision intact.
|
|
|
|
Post by gyeonghwa on Nov 17, 2011 13:18:32 GMT -5
This is actually riskier. A ruling that they didn't have standing would have ended this ordeal within a matter of months, leaving California with marriage equality. It's neither good nor bad news; it just indicates where this case will be heading. There is a lot more at stake now. The Supreme Court could rule that there is no right to marriage equality...precedent we could be stuck with for decades and that would hinder progress at the state level, or they could rule that marriage equality is a constitutional right and it would apply to the entire country. Or they could reject the reasoning of the CA Supreme Court anyway and leave the original decision intact. With the current status of SCOTUS, what are our currents odds for each of those chances? Also, I hope in the few years it takes from them to discuss this, more people will become pro-gay marriage. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Nov 17, 2011 13:20:54 GMT -5
It is expected that the 4 liberal justices (Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer) will rule in favor, the 4 conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Thomas) will rule against, and that there is a good likelihood that the swing justice Kennedy will rule in favor, making a 5-4 decision in favor of marriage equality.
Justice Kennedy not just voted for, but authored, the two most significant gay rights Supreme Court cases in U.S. history: Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.
However, NOTHING is certain!
|
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Nov 17, 2011 13:29:23 GMT -5
The ruling will liley be 5-4 with Kennedy deciding. Unless we have a right-wing vacancy within the next 3 years. Yes, this is the riskier option, but this is the only option that's going to allow us marriage equality throughout the country. The right wing will never allow for their state amendments to be rewritten, and they'll never allow us to garner the votes for a constitutional amendment in congress to make it legal. It has to be by the courts. And prop 8 is just...it's the one. It was THE most devisive battle we've seen in this generation. The single most ugly, disturbing, nasty proposition since the sixties. Their ads were filled with blatant lies. It was so disgusting we united two opposing top lawyers to fight for us. They fought every single step to make sure it went this far. We only wanted to overturn it in CA at first - they're the ones that wanted to stop us by any means necessary. If you went to Courage Campaign or FireDogLake and read the transcripts day by day back in 2010 then you'll remember they frankly had no case. Really, a monkey without half it's brain could have probably put on a better show than they did, their case was fucking shit stupid. Their case was so stupid I don't think even the goddamn chewbacca defense woulda saved it. Prop 8's the trojan horse - they pushed it, they forced it down our throats, and then kicked us while we were down and protesting how wrong it was. They made their beds, now they get to sleep in them. They get to remember, forever, that this case, Prop 8, $40 million dollars that could have made tens of thousands of habitat for humanity houses to partially wipe out homelessness in this country - instead went to destroy LGBT lives, and it backfired on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 17, 2011 13:47:22 GMT -5
Ok now I'm a bit more excited.
Ironbite-considering how laughable the arguments that were presented...I have some hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Nov 17, 2011 13:47:49 GMT -5
This is actually riskier. A ruling that they didn't have standing would have ended this ordeal within a matter of months, leaving California with marriage equality. It's neither good nor bad news; it just indicates where this case will be heading. Yeah, but a favorable Supreme Court ruling will end a lot of the shit and nonsense LBGT folks have had to put up with legally. Won’t do jack socially, of course, but that’s another matter altogether. Piecemeal rulings will just make everything more confusing, and some parts of the shitstorm that much worse. I think on the whole, going a step closer to the Supreme Court is a positive. It’s just a pity that what is supposed to be a neutral branch of the government is no less partisan than the other two. |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Nov 17, 2011 14:03:20 GMT -5
It's only a positive as long as Kennedy keeps being pro-gay rights. Otherwise, we're screwed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rat Of Steel on Nov 17, 2011 14:15:16 GMT -5
It's only a positive as long as Kennedy keeps being pro-gay rights. Otherwise, we're screwed. Perhaps, but as I recall, the original trial judge had a bit of foresight, and quoted Justice Kennedy quite often in his ruling, implicitly asking "what are you gonna do when this case reaches you, disagree with yourself?" ;D |
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Nov 17, 2011 14:29:10 GMT -5
It's only a positive as long as Kennedy keeps being pro-gay rights. Otherwise, we're screwed. Perhaps, but as I recall, the original trial judge had a bit of foresight, and quoted Justice Kennedy quite often in his ruling, implicitly asking "what are you gonna do when this case reaches you, disagree with yourself?" ;D Haven’t read the ruling, so I don’t know how the quotes are actually being used. But if Kennedy were to disagree, he can always say the original ruling was quote-mining him or sumsuch. Though if it is clearly not quote mining, it would still expose Kennedy as being the total dick we all hope he’s not. |
|
