1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Court won't order California to defend Prop 8

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Dan82, Sep 8, 2010.

  1. Dan82

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago IL
    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hOiMLmsztmiGlNvjNLQLw4N41h1QD9I42FF00

     
  2. Revan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,850
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Canada
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    So what does this mean? That it's over? Or what next?
     
  3. x2x2x2x2y2

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2009
    Messages:
    2,326
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Wonderland (and California, USA)
    ^This.
     
  4. Martin

    Board Member Admin Team Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,266
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    It doesn't mean anything really. Nothing has changed.

    The ninth circuit will still hear the case in December, and they will decide whether the Protect Marriage group have legal standing to appeal the case.
     
  5. Revan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,850
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Canada
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Why does the Ninth Circuit still have to hear it? If the highest court in California has ruled it won't be defended, doesn't that mean the entire case is gone or does it mean that it will just go through the Ninth Circuit more quickly? I don't really understand any of this...
     
  6. Leon481

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    Messages:
    273
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southeast of Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    The point of this particular case was to try and force either the governor or the attorney general to fight for Prop 8. The court decided (rightfully) that the governor and attorney general have a right to decide for themselves what they want to endorse or ignore. This case has nothing to do with the standing of Prop 8. They just can't force the governor or attorney general to get involved.

    I don't know what made these people think they had legal standing to pull this off in the first place.
     
  7. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    how I understood it, in the original case, they had a choice to defend prop 8, and choose to allow a private group to. From what my uncle said, who is a lawyer, that is permissable.

    when it comes to the appeal though, because prop 8 has already been deemed by the courts to be unconstitutional, the appeal is not on the merits of prop 8, but on the merits of the first court case. Therefore, it is not required that anyone defend prop 8. the point of the appeal is to declare that the first court case was flawed, and therefore it needs to be returned to the lower court with a new judge to be reheard.
     
  8. Revan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,850
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Canada
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Ok and if they determine it wasn't flawed?
     
  9. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    then someone can appeal to the next court from the current court, and try to claim the appeal process was flawed, which can ultimately lead to the supreme court, which would make a final ruling on the matter.
     
  10. Martin

    Board Member Admin Team Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,266
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Hmm, I'm confused.

    Surely to prove the argument is flawed, they have to prove that Prop 8 is constitutional? The only way to do that is to go over the arguments again. The Protect Marriage side can't prove that a ruling is flawed without making their pro-8 arguments again, and it would be unfair for them to do that without also giving the proponents the chance to make their arguments as well.

    If that's the case then the case will still be on the merits of Prop 8? I don't understand how you could decide whether a ruling is inaccurate without once again hearing the merits of Prop 8.
     
  11. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    the only other way to prove a flaw in the precedings is to show that legal procedure was not followed properly... and that is very hard to do with federal judges, who are well versed in court procedure and protocal, so they know how to make their court cases and rulings fairly tight... hence why we got a 130+ ruling; he left no stone unturned, and filled in all the gaps.
     
  12. Martin

    Board Member Admin Team Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Messages:
    15,266
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Merseyside, UK
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Wow, I didn't expect it to work out that way. I thought they'd have to go through the same legal arguments for and against Prop 8 at each stage.

    Twill be interesting to see how the courts deal with Walker's ruling. ^_^

    Ohh, and here's something else I am curious about. Meg Whitman and the Republican nominee for Attorney General (can't remember his name) have both stated they will appeal the ruling should either of them be elected. Is that actually going to be possible in January when they take office? I heard that the deadline for appeal was some time around now, so not exactly sure what their promise to appeal means, and what (if any) effect it could have for the case.
     
  13. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    nope. they dont take office until january, as you noted, and you cannot file a appeal past the filing deadline, which I think is sometime this next week. i want to say monday or tuesday. between the filing deadline for appeal briefs, the judges who are assigned the role of sitting bench for this appeal process, since there will be three this time, will then useing the intervening time before the december start of the court case to review the briefs so that the court case can start in full swing.

    they cant defend it because the court case will already have been underway for a month and a half by the time they take office, pending their elections.

    I find it surprising that neither of them seem to understand how the court processes to work, and yet they are making campaign promises for something they dont even have the legal standing IF elected to do.

    if jerry brown, the current attorny general for the state of california is elected govener, and he would change his mind, and decide to defend prop 8, he would no longer lack the legal standing, because he was elected govener after the deadlines, and he no longer has legal authority as attorney general.
     
  14. Revan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    7,850
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Canada
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Here's what I just read @_@ :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

    just kidding though, I did understand what you just said :slight_smile: