9th Circuit grants indefinite stay in Prop 8 case

[Newsjock]

Source: KGO-TV

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just granted an indefinite stay in the Prop 8 case, prohibiting any same-sex marriages from taking place.

The lower court had ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, and ordered same-sex marriages to be allowed in California again by 5 p.m. Wednesday. But a three judge panel of the appeals court just stayed, or delayed his order, so same sex marriages are on hold once again, in California.

Read more: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fsan_francisco&id=7612521

[petronius]

1. That sucks. I wonder what the reasoning was...

[Lance_Boyle]

2. Well, the *good* news is that the 9th circuit remains the most-overturned

circuit court in the nation...

Nice to be able to cite that little gem in support of the cause the world's worst court opposes.

[Francesca9]

66. when?

[Posteritatis]

94. "the world's worst court" might be just a little hyperbolic. (nt)

[KamaAina]

3. Like the man said, justice delayed is justice denied.

:grr:

[DURHAM D]

4. Its scheduled for December. How is that "indefinite"?

[msanthrope]

5. Well, when you've got Obama to bash.....n/t

[ruggerson]

57. What motivates you to come into these threads about equal marriage rights?

Cause I see nothing from you but thinly disguised hostility.

[msanthrope]

90. I want equal marriage rights for all. n/t

[totodeinhere]

54. That's the earliest that the appeal can be heard, but there is no time limit to how long it will

take them to decide the appeal. Therefore I think the word "indefinite" is appropriate.

[No Elephants]

73. The stay will probably remain in effect until a final decision has been rendered--perhaps by the

Supremes.

[pgodbold]

6. Motherfuckers.

[msanthrope]

7. Why? You've got an expedited appeal on standing. How is that bad?

[aranthus]

129. Bingo!

There is a good chance that this appeal will be dismissed in December on the standing issue. So in the long run, it may actually be a good thing that the Court imposed a stay. That's becasue if they hadn't then the proponents of Prop 8 would have sought an immediate review in the Supreme Court, which even the anti-Prop 8 people think might be a bad thing.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. And of course this pleases the President for he is against

the equal rights of minorities his unpracticed faith tells him not to like.

[msanthrope]

9. And of course, you've got an expedited appeal. How is that bad? n/t

[FBaggins]

33. You can't spin it as good news

There were three possible outcomes. They could reject the appeal outright (good)... they could accept the appeal but refuse to grant a stay because they saw little chance of the appeal succeeding (good)... or they could agree to hear the case and grant the stay (neither good nor bad... but the worst of the three).

[msanthrope]

34. It's not good or bad--it's court process. This isn't 'the appeal', FYI.

It's an appeal on the limited issue of standing.

[FBaggins]

37. That's incorrect.

It's an appeal where (in addition to whatever else they want to argue), the court specifically wants to hear arguments re: standing.

It MAY not be a bad thing, but as I said... it's the worst of the possible outcomes (except to the extent that it "gives Kennedy some breathing room").

[msanthrope]

88. No--I am correct--it's not 'the appeal.'

"The appeal" is an appeal of the ruling itself on substantive issues.

This is merely an appeal of the standing issue. It will be limited to that issue, and highly technical.

[FBaggins]

92. Sorry... once again that's incorrect.

There is nothing in the panel's order that restricts this to a standing hearing. They set the schedule for the entire appeal (including arguments that would not take place if we won the standing issue). It's certainly possible that the court could receive arguments related to standing and decide not to continue, but there is nothing that supports your position that they haven't decided to accept the appeal.

This is merely an appeal of the standing issue

Nope. There is no ruling on standing and thus nothing to "appeal" in that regard.

[msanthrope]

98. Jeebus. As the defense is not appealing, only the proponents, and the

proposed proponents, the Appeals Court has directed the parties involved to brief on standing....I dont know if you've ever read a federal court brief, but this order pretty much says "Start with this. You don't pass this, you don't get any farther."


"In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997)."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35982567/Ninth-Circuit-Order-Granting-Stay-in-Prop-8-Litigation


If the appellants do NOT prove standing, you know happens? The court will not rule on the rest. And yes, while the appellants can raise anything they want to in appeal, they must first start with standing to prove they have the right to raise it. Not for anything...but you haven't yet seen the intermediary filings.

This is not, and will not be the final be all and end all....it's the opening salvo.

FYI--I'm sorry you missed THE RULING ON STANDING that was issued the same day as Perry. It's directed to Imperial County, it's worth a read, (17 pages) and, I'm certain you can work the google to find it.

[FBaggins]

100. Nope.

The court had the option of staying the ruling AND waiting to grant an appear until after a separate determination of standing.

That isn't what they did.

"In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal...

It's beyond me how you can read a schedule for arguments in an appeal and somehow claim that an appeal hasn't been granted.

FYI--I'm sorry you missed THE RULING ON STANDING that was issued the same day as Perry. It's directed to Imperial County,

Is Imperial County mentioned in the order? Do you not find it strange that you're claiming that the court is really granting just a hearing on an appeal that they don't mention? Or that the court granted a stay that Imperial never requested if that's what this really was?

This is not, and will not be the final be all and end all....it's the opening salvo.

Well of course that's true... but it doesn't mean that an appeal hasn't been granted. It has. An appeal can be dismissed at any time (and may... though it would muddle things terribly)... but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Keep in mind... if the 9th does not rule on the merits of the case, it has very limited precedential value (and would leave the decision open to later appeal by a new governor... reopening the political issue). Most of California's counties would be left to make their own decisions.

[msanthrope]

102. So you still haven't read Walker's ruling on standing regarding Imperial County?

Again, I'm going to suggest to you that you actually read that RULING....

Because that's the ruling being appealed. Seriously.

Have you noticed who the Intervenor here, is? Read the caption?

I gave you the link.

This is an appeal by an Intervenor, on the issue whether an Intervenor can continue an appeal. This is an invitation for the Intervenor to dispute 520 US 43.

[FBaggins]

104. I have and I've already corrected you on it.

Because that's the ruling being appealed. Seriously.


Care to tell me how a appelate court grants a stay that hasn't been requested?

The fact that the judge made a ruling on someone else's standing gives you no basis for claiming that this is the ruling being appealed. As I mentioned in the last post, you would be on firmer ground if the order didn't specifically mention that the appelant's request for a stay is granted (a stay that Imperial never requested - so they are therefore NOT the sole target of the order).

I gave you the link.

You gave the link to the 9th circuit's order... which does not list Impreial County.

[msanthrope]

107. O dear Jeebus, still haven't read the actual decision, have you?

Since you are an attorney, you've read the ruling Walker issued as to Imperial County, on the issue of intervenors, and you know what's being appealed right now.

Since you are an attorney, you have access to the entire docket thru Westlaw or Lexis, and you've used it.

Since you are an attorney, you understand that if one legislative intervenor has a ruling, it applies to all legislative intervenors. (Can you name the legislative intervnors?) Or, are you suggesting that preclusion does not apply?

Since you are an attorney, you know that the court extended the stay granted by Walker pending the standing issue--they did not issue one that wasn't asked for.

Since you are an attorney, you know what et al means. You've looked at the complete list of intervenors and seen Imperial County there, as a prospective intervenor.

(Or, as an attorney, are you seriously suggesting that the use of the term 'et al' means that it doesn't count? Because that's the kind of legal argument I expect Orly Taitz to make.)

Since you are an attorney, perhaps you could explain to me just how you seem to know so litle about basic federal practice.

Oh, yeah.

[FBaggins]

108. Bet you wish you read #105 before posting that. Let me know

when you wipe the egg off your face (and/or get the 9th circuit to admit that they don't understand federal court practice).

:rofl:

[msanthrope]

110. Again, thank you for posting proof you can't read a docket.

If we went with your explanation, then there's no reason for Dennis Hollingsworth to appear twice--particularly on the Imperial County order...

no...the court had to issue a clarification, which is noted on the docket itself..because apparently you, nor Imperial County, understand what et al means....

ETA--this bodes well, given that Imperial County is too stupid to figure such things out....

[FBaggins]

112. Really? lol

If we went with your explanation, then there's no reason for Dennis Hollingsworth to appear twice,


Can't wait to hear this spin. He can't be involved with both cases?


no...the court had to issue a clarification

So this just replaces the last order in your mind. Hey... that's GREAT news... why don't you start the new thread letting everyone know that the stay has NOT been granted... since this "clarified" order no longer mentions it?

[msanthrope]

115. Answered downthread. Stop conflating docket numbers and case numbers.....

I'm surprised a lawyer is doing that.

[FBaggins]

116. Tell it to the 9th.

They're the ones who called it a case number.

Think anyone here misses you dodging the more substantive issues? Nah... but if your ego requires you to pretend it isn't there... who am I to knock you down?


Time to stop digging.

[msanthrope]

118. I answered you below--I think we are just mistaking each other....

I made the mistake of keeping to the DC docket.

This morning, the Ct of Appeals split their docket and assigned two numbers...

10-16696 (Main appeal)
10-16751 (Intervenor appeal)

So Imperial County, and the rest, were granted yesterday and today. We are arguing at cross purposes.

[FBaggins]

120. 10-16751 was docketed almost a week ago.

It's a separate appeal. The arguments have been aligned, but yesterday's order was not made on this case. It was made on an appeal to a decision that did NOT include standing. As I have said from the beginning.

Sorry. I'd love to give you an easy way out... but you're forced to dine on corvus brachyrhynchos. :)

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Imperial-County-9th-CA-docketing-letter.pdf

[24601]

126. I'm not an attorney; however, I played the judge in "Miracle on

34th Street", so I have considerable legal experience.

Let's look at the case and first I'd note that marriage has long been regulates by the states. In that context, a federal law regulating marriage would likely be unconstitutional since it's not an Article II federal enumerated power and the 10th Amendment provides that if a power is not granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, then it is reserved to the states or to the people.

So the tough part is finding out what powers belong to the states verses what rights belong to the people. Regulating drivers licenses falls to the states while the freedom to choose which state you live in falls to the people. Complex issues like abortion have portions falling in both camps, although until Roe, it was a state power exclusively.

What about Marriage? No offense to the 9th Circuit, but they are irrelevant since whatever they decide, it will be just a temporary stop en route to the USSC. The precedent would appear that it historically has been regulated by the states. IMO, to overcome that, the USSC would have to find that picking a same sex spouse, is a fundamental constitutional right. That is a tall order because states have all sorts of marriage rules, including regulating minimum ages. Mucking with all that isn't trivial.

So how does the USSC line up? 4 to 4 with Justice Kennedy deciding whether it's a state power or an individual right. It's not a slam-dunk since history sides with the states; however, he has shown regard for GBLT issues.

As much as it pains me, I have to agree with Scalia comment that words to the effect that if you were going to invest nine Americans with the power to make social policy, why would anyone choose nine ivy-league lawyers?

It's all going to be up to Justice Kennedy. Ladies & gentlemen, place your bets.

[FBaggins]

105. Game Set and Match.

The 9th circuit just granted Imperial County their appeal of the standing decision this morning.

You'll note that one order includes Imperial and the other does not.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/9th-CA-order-Imperial-County-8-17-10.pdf

[msanthrope]

109. Thank you for posting this. It confirms that you are incorrect.

Look at your docket notes.

It's a clarification of the prior order.

Which is why Dennis Hollingsworth is listed twice--otherwise, what's he doing on Imperial County's order?*** Going by your thinking, after all....

Because apparently, you are not alone in not being able to figure out what et al means.

***He's a separate intervenor.

[FBaggins]

111. Lol... time to stop digging. Check the case numbers.

You're a laugh a minute aren't you?

It's a clarification of the prior order.

"This appeal shall be calendared with case No. 10-16696"

Two different case numbers. What are the chances that you can spin that to mean it's really the same case?

[msanthrope]

113. Dude--those are docket numbers...the case number on both documents is

D.C. No. 3:09-cv-02292-VRW

It's why when you file in court, you leave that docket # blank. The court assigns it.

It's usually handwritten when you get it back....

But of course, since you are an attorney, you knew that....

[FBaggins]

114. Better tell the 9th circuit that they don't know what a case number is.

And that your experience chasing ambulances exceded their qualifications.

"This appeal shall be calendared with case No. 10-16696"

[msanthrope]

117. You know I think I know why you are confusing this.....

I'm looking at the DC, you are looking at the CT of Appeals....

I updated my docket search, and as of this morning, the Court of Appeals put in two numbers --

10-16696 (Main appeal)
10-16751 (Intervenor appeal)

Imperial County is listed in both....they were granted yesterday and today, in both appeals.

I think we are just arguing the same thing....

[FBaggins]

119. Sorry... no. It isn't the same thing. There are two cases.

Which will now be heard together.

You tried to spin that there has been no granting of an appeal to overturning of prop 8. That all there is so far is an appeal of whether or not there is standing for an appeal. That yesterday's ruling was on Imperial's appeal of that standing ruling. THAT ruling came out today. You further tried to spin that today's order was merely a correction of yesterday's (which would be a pretty newsworthy correction since it no longer mentions a stay).

Yesterday's stay order was for the appeal on the merits. THAT appeal COULD end quickly if the merits panel determines that there is no standing, but this isn't being argued solely on the issue of standing (though today's ruling would be since that's what IC appealed). Both parties will be submitting arguments on the merits... which means that the appeal has been accepted.

And as I said earlier... we WANT an appeal on the merits... or this case is much ado about not much.

A quick .02 lesson for you (that's worth every penny):). Both sides of an issue tend to be represented by lawyers... but at least one is wrong. Claiming on the internet that you have a legal degree doesn't add much credibility (and I say that having taken more than my share of credits in the law).

[No Elephants]

125. Nice!

[No Elephants]

76. No, granting an appeal that has been properly sought is process, A stay is not an inevitable side

effect of our judicial system.

[msanthrope]

89. This has been properly sought, and a stay in this case

is not unwarranted.

[No Elephants]

123. Um, I was contradicting your erroneous claim that "It's not good or bad--it's court process."

The issue whether a stay is warranted or *snort* not unnwarranted* is not simply "court process."

So thanks for proving my point...while you tried to move the goal post.

[No Elephants]

75. How is the stay bad? Geez.

[msanthrope]

91. I said 'expedited appeal.'

The expeditious appeal is great. The stay is unfortunate, but not not an unexpected thing.

Does it suck this isn't resolved? Of course. But the court process grinds slowly.

[No Elephants]

124. LOL. Take another look at Replies 6 and 7, both of which were the context of my reply to you.

[MineralMan]

10. Which "unpracticed faith" do you mean, pray tell?

[No Elephants]

83. Good question. Rick Warren's, apparently--or so it might seem.

Obama has not attended church regularly since the Wright kerfuffel. However, I do not think that Wright preached homophobia. Please see Reply 77--and 80.

Exactly what goes on in Obama's thoughts? No one can possibly knows for certain, though some sure talk as though they can.

[boppers]

11. President was against Prop 8.

Facts are pesky things.

[Smashcut]

29. And his public statements against equal marriage were used by Prop 8 backers

to obtain passage. With nary a peep from him on camera in response.

Yes, facts are pesky things.

[boppers]

32. Yes, they are.

http://www.queerty.com/obama-prop-8-unnecessary-but-doesnt-believe-in-gay-marriage-20081103/

[Smashcut]

35. LOL.

Just proved my point. Thanks for the link! :hi:

[boppers]

39. No prob. It's a pretty good article.

It doesn't totally explain the reasons for the odd stance Obama has taken, but it tried to be very fair (IMO) about the various angles of it.

[No Elephants]

80. How could any article totally explain what has been called "Obama's awkward stance" on equal

rights, when Obama hasn't totally explained it? Mind reading?

This is another example of what he often does. Saying things he hopes everyone will find something to hang on to. But, that he (or his supporters) can at least try to deny plausibly later.

My guess. He is drawing some line in his mind between disapproving of gay marriage, but also disapproving of memorializing religious belief in secular law, such as Prop 8. And it sucks just as much as if someone had tried hair splitting over any Jim Crow law or anything growing out of the conviction, real or feigned, that people of color are inherently inferior. As to marriage in particular, See Loving v. Virginia.

Another guess: His equivocating has a lot has more to do with elections--his own, first, and those of other Democrats second, than it does with religion. (See, e.g., Bill Clinton's recanting of his official opposition to gay marriage--but only after he was termed out AND Hillary had lost the primary AND he had signed DOMA (and asked Congress to enact DADT, taking the political pressure off himself, but also raising issues for future Presidents who might wish to eliminate invidious discrimination in the military on the basis of orientation via executive order, as did Truman, with respect to people of color).

[No Elephants]

78. Your link adds no new "fact" and does not rebut Smashcut's post.

[No Elephants]

77. True, but he also opposed same gender marriage because "God is in the mix" of marriage, a

sentiment Obama stated in homophobia-preaching Rick Warren's church during the campaign. You know, before he honored Warren by inviting him to give the world's most significant prayer since George Washington was sworn in (assuming they had a prayer then).

Facts are not pesky, boppers. They simply are. Half truths, however, suck scissors.

(Edited for two typos.)

[NYC Liberal]

13. Unlikely, since Obama was against Prop 8.

Don't let facts get in the way though.

[t0dd]

27. yes, he was such a vocal opponent of it..

:eyes: that's why prop 8 proponents had those flyers printed with that lovely quote from our fierce advocate that he "opposes same-sex marriage"..

but don't let facts get in the way though.

[boppers]

38. Upthread...

:evilgrin:

[No Elephants]

81. t0dd's post, like Smashcut's, reflects reality..

[NYC Liberal]

62. Ah yes, Obama was against it, but he was "REALLY" for it

:eyes:

Nothing Obama does will ever be right for some people when there's always an excuse.

It's the wrong position.
It's the right position, but he wasn't vocal enough.
He was vocal, but "we need more than speeches."
It's the right position, but he has some secret ulterior motive.

[t0dd]

64. How does one simultaneously oppose prop 8 and marriage equality?

And he shouldn't call himself a fierce advocate when he does nothing for gay rights. Sorry if his inaction to injustice is me just being "too demanding".. :eyes:

[NYC Liberal]

65. So you claim he supported Prop 8, even though he didn't?

Well it's nice to know we can just rewrite history and facts around here.

[No Elephants]

84. Put words into other folks' posts much? t0dd's question is 100% valid. See Reply ##s 77, 27 and 80

t0dd's question has been the subject of much discussion by experts. Google is your friend.

Well, maybe not on net nuetrality or privacy concerns, but, if you use it properly, it will lead you to some of the discussions to which I referred. (Many others occurred in broadcast media and among the general populace, but did not find their way into the tubes of the internets.)

[NYC Liberal]

97. My first post in this thread was a response to the claim

that the ruling "of course pleases the President." Since Obama has always opposed Prop 8, that claim is tenuous at best and more than likely false. It doesn't matter what his stance on marriage equality is because I never claimed he supported it. I was responding to a post that made a claim that could only be true if Obama supported Prop 8, which he never has.

[No Elephants]

122. None of which has a thing to do with my Reply 84 to you, which, in turn, had

nothing to do with your first reply on this thread. It had to do with how you "responded" to t0dd's question. And t0dd's question had to do with Obama's stand on BOTH Prop 8 and same gender marriage.

[No Elephants]

85. Attacking Obama's critics doesn't prove your point, either.

[NYC Liberal]

96. Correcting a factual error helps everyone. nt

[No Elephants]

82. He is against same gender marriage. Please see Reply 77

[NYC Liberal]

95. He is against Prop 8, so the claim that

I responded to - "this pleases the President" - is very likely false.

[No Elephants]

74. I feel ya, but, to be fair, he did say he did not approve of Prop 8.

[stranger81]

12. This does not bode well. [n/t]

[KamaAina]

14. Federal court blocks same-sex weddings in California while appeal considered

Source: SF Chronicle

Federal court blocks same-sex weddings in California while appeal considered

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/14/national/a022838D10.DTL

---

That's all so far.

And that's all for civil rights for what? Another year or two? Followed by the inevitable appeal to the Supremes? :grr:

[xultar]

15. Fuckers. You'll see now why elections matter. Judicial appointments matter!

[msanthrope]

17. Jeebus calm down...expected, and we dont even know if

the Appeals Court will hear the case...

save the hysterics for later.

[xultar]

20. Calling them fuckers is not hysterics. You calling me hysterical for calling them fuckers is

Hysterical.

[tomm2thumbs]

23. your reply made me smile -thanks

well played

[Binka]

41. Me Too!

Xultar rocks, the other poster with the "calm down" and "hysterical" memes not so much. :hi:

[msanthrope]

24. Calling appellate judges 'fuckers' before they have actually ruled? Hysterical.

Seriously.

ETA--you've got a fast track on the standing issue appeals. The judges did what was right and proper.

Calm yourself.

[DURHAM D]

58. What's the matter with you?

Where do you get off telling us that we need to chill out about getting our rights. I am 65 years old and have waited long enough.

I don't like to be talked down to by anyone. Especially an arrogant unfeeling know it all.

[No Elephants]

86. Posting "judicial appointments matter" is "hysterics?" LOL

[SnakeEyes]

25. Clinton appointed 2.

Reagan appointed 1

[Sapphocrat]

67. That was the panel deciding on the stay,

We have no idea which three judges will be deciding the merits of the case -- they haven't been drawn yet.

[No Elephants]

87. And your point would be?

[msanthrope]

16. Expected--and not anything to wet your pants over.

The appeals proceed on the issue of standing.

The Court hasn't even decided if it will hear the appeals....so chill.

[MineralMan]

26. Really...how dare you tell our GLBT DUers to "chill?"

They have every right to feel disappointed. Or is this your "Obama is a Muslim" voice? See my other reply to your previous post. I'd like an answer, if you don't mind.

[msanthrope]

30. I think you are conflating me with another poster.

But yes, I'm telling everyone to chill. Disappointment is normal--Obama bashing and court bashing inappropriate.

[MineralMan]

31. Yes, there is often disappointment.

You needn't rub people's noses in it, though. That's just mean. People are disappointed that there will be further delay. Many have waited a very long time. Give them time to be pissed, without telling them how to feel, please, if you would.

[msanthrope]

36. I take your point. n/t

[Sapphocrat]

68. Extending this stay was NOT expected.

What WAS expected was for the 9th to allow this stay to expire Wednesday, and allow couples to resume marrying, WHILE the standing issue was being hashed out, and then, IF the DI's had standing, WHILE the appeal proceeded.

Fuck, read ANY analysis from ANY legal eagle not on the gay-haters' side.

And stop telling us to "chill." Your dismissiveness is salt in a gaping wound.

[msanthrope]

101. Kindly cite your legal authorities.

While I do not dispute that this is disappointing--because it is, the stay was simply not unexpected. Nor is allowing the appeal on the issue of standing.

[Sapphocrat]

103. The county clerks, to name one bunch...

...preparing for "mass weddings." Arnold Schwarzenegger. Jerry Brown. Gavin Newsom, who was hella surprised and dismayed yesterday. Kate Kendell and pretty much everyone else at the NCLR. Judge Walker himself. For starters.

Sorry if you haven't kept up with the thousands of analyses posted online over the past year. They're out there if you want to look for them -- and you should; I don't expect you to take my word for anything.

[SoCalNative]

18. No..if you read the order

they have fast tracked this so that the appeal will be heard in early December.

[flpoljunkie]

19. More from the LATimes...

No gay marriages in California before December, court rules

August 16, 2010
3:58 pm

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday agreed to keep same-sex marriages on hold until at least December.

In a brief order, a three-judge panel agreed to an expedited review of U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker's Aug. 4 ruling that overturned Proposition 8 as a violation of the federal Constitution.

The panel agreed to hold a hearing on the case during the week of Dec. 6 and ordered both sides to present arguments on whether the campaign for Proposition 8 has legal authority to appeal Walker's order.

Walker had declared Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, saying it violates gay men's and lesbians' rights to equal protection and due process.

The defendants in that case were Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown, but they declined to defend the law. As the losing parties, they have the authority to appeal Walker's ruling. But they hailed Walker's decision and said they would not appeal.

A private group that opposes same-sex marriage, ProtectMarriage.com, defended Proposition 8 during the trial Walker held earlier this year. The group wants to appeal his ruling but may lack legal standing to do so.

-- Maura Dolan in San Francisco

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/08/federal-appeals-court-blocks-enforcement-of-prop-8-ruling.html

[tomm2thumbs]

21. that was helpful information - thank you

[SoapBox]

22. This is what happens when spineless Dems/Libs/Progressives just sit on their hands...

...call me the nay sayer...and I'll be very happy to eat Humble Pie(s) when proven wrong...

but my gut says that this will end up at the Supreme Court...then the Activist "Minds already made up" Judges
will pull somekind of crap out of their brains...and ban gay marriage nationwide.

The Homo Haters (and just Haters in general) have moved into so many positions of power
and control...and it's getting worse. They will move us bad into the closet or worse, if
they get their way.

So all those spineless, jellyfishlike Dems (Reid), just keep on NOT fighting and
this is what happens...Who will be the next target?

------------

Pastor Martin Niemöller 14 January 1892 – 6 March 1984

“THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

[Le Taz Hot]

79. Oh, you did NOT just lump us

(liberals/progressives) in with the Democrats. That's like lumping together Habitats for Humanity with Home Depot. Learn to recognize the enemy -- chief among them being ignorance.

[AllTooEasy]

28. Clinton and Reagan fucked us again

Clinton appointed 2 of these bastards, Reagan appointed 1. I stil blame Obama though, because I'm a conformist.

[proReality]

40. That is so wrong! n/t

[GodlessBiker]

42. PROP 8: Stay Granted; Case Expedited; Standing Questioned

Source: Calitics

The Ninth Circuit just issued the following order:

Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED.

The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.

The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

Three things:

First, and drastically most importantly, the Court granted the stay. Consequently the thousands of couples who were waiting for the day of equality will have to wait at least a few more months until December. It's interesting that the panel does not at all discuss the reasons for their decision on the motion to stay. That's because if they went through the factors, there's no way they could rationalize the stay. They themselves raise the issue of standing and express an inclination that the case should be dismissed on that basis. How, then, could they possibly determine that the Appellants have a "high likelihood of success on the merits"? And how can they show that the Appellants will suffer any harm if loving couples in California are allowed to marry each other?

Second, the Court wants this case to be resolved quickly. Appellants' opening brief is due in just a month and the hearing will happen on December 6th. This is lightning quick for a Federal Court of Appeals, and it's a very good sign. The Court understands that this case is important, and it doesn't want it to linger.

Third, the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Here's a discussion of the standing issue. This is very good news for us. It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing. Even better, the Court is expressing an opinion that its inclination is that the case should be dismissed. That being said, the panel that issued this Order (the motions panel) is not the same panel that will hear that case on the merits. The merits panel will be selected shortly before December 6th and we don't know the three judges who will be on the merits panel. But this is a very good sign that the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of standing alone.


Read more: http://www.calitics.com/diary/12338/prop-8-stay-granted-case-expedited-standing-questioned

---

Big bad news and some good news.

[Smashcut]

43. Fuckers.

[paulkienitz]

48. they're bending over to be fair (perhaps I should rephrase that)

It might actually be worse in the long run if they didn't grant the stay, because then the right wing rhetoric would be that the judges have decided in advance and are judicial activists etc, whereas this way no one can say they aren't being fair on some level to the pro-Prop-8 case, nonexistent though it may be.

In other words, it's a rather Obama-ish move.

To look at it another way... if the final ruling is that gay marriage is OK, then the stay may be unjustified in hindsight, but it does relatively little harm to delay things for a few months. On the other hand, if somehow they make a case that teh gay must be stopped, then legally, it would look really bad for them to have allowed the family-destroying to run rampant while they figured that out. So they may have felt obligated to do this just by looking at how it would sit with each of the two possible outcomes of the case.

[xchrom]

44. Grrrrrrrrrrrr! Nt

[dencol]

45. What's the bad news?

That marriages are delayed for a bit longer? Gay people need to have a little patience... these things don't change overnight. :sarcasm:

[tomm2thumbs]

46. 3 Judges Who Made This Call BTW (I understand different judges will decide issues)

Judges Edward Leavy, Michael Daly Hawkins and Sidney Thomas.

Hawkins, 65, is a semi-retired "senior" judge who stepped down from full-time duty earlier this year. A 1994 appointee of former President Bill Clinton, Hawkins is a former Arizona U.S. attorney generally considered one of the 9th Circuit's moderates.

The Montana-based Thomas, who turns 57 on Saturday, is also a Clinton appointee, for the most part regarded as liberal on many issues. Thomas is also considered one of the 9th Circuit's leaders, and gained national attention earlier this year when President Barack Obama interviewed him as one of the finalists for the U.S. Supreme Court slot that went to Elena Kagan.

The 81-year-old Leavy, based in Oregon, is a senior judge with a part-time caseload and 1987 appointee of former President Ronald Reagan. He is a former state and federal trial judge who would likely be the most conservative member of the panel deciding whether to allow same-sex marriages to take place right away.


added link for info
ref: http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_15770592?source=rss&nclick_check=1

[tomm2thumbs]

47. three things:

think it bears repeating the third of the 'Three things:'

Third, the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Here’s a discussion of the standing issue. This is very good news for us. It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing. Even better, the Court is expressing an opinion that its inclination is that the case should be dismissed. That being said, the panel that issued this Order (the motions panel) is not the same panel that will hear that case on the merits. The merits panel will be selected shortly before December 6th and we don’t know the three judges who will be on the merits panel. But this is a very good sign that the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of standing alone.

reference:
http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/08/16/breaking-9th-circuit-stays-judge-walkers-ruling-appeal-scheduled-december-6/


added link to court order:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35980488/CA9Doc-14

[NorthCarolina]

49. The decision comes after the November elections. Good thing or bad thing?

Will this delay drive the fundies to the polls in droves come November?

[Sapphocrat]

69. I don't think anyone really knows, but...

If we end up with...

...Brown as gov and someone like Kamala Harris as AG, it won't matter; neither will defend H8.

...Whitman as gov, it will matter a lot if some loophole would allow Whitman to step in as the official defendant (which I suspect she would); AG would not matter, since -- while the AG has some discretion in whether or not to defend an unconstitutional law -- Calif. restricts the AG from directly opposing (or suing) the governor. (Ask a lawyer about this; I'm no expert.)

Will it drive fundies to the polls? It always does.

[closeupready]

50. This issue is being exploited for political advantage by Republicans.

Very clear to me. :mad:

[customerserviceguy]

51. While the standing issue is important

it could cut both ways. If the Ninth Circuit feels that the nincompoops have no standing before them, they might also decide that they had no standing before Judge Walker. His decision could be nullified based on the idea that parties that were not competent to bring a case before his court lost their asses.

It's going to be somewhat murky for the next few months. That might work toward our advantage in the coming California elections this fall.

[Moonwalk]

53. But if those who argued before Walker had no standing---

That means that those who did have standing (the State of CA) DID NOT want to argue it (they didn't) and, thus, Prop. 8 automatically loses.

I don't believe, however, that Walker's judgement will be nullified if these people have no standing in this appeal. There is a precedent for such stand-in's on Walker's level, meaning arguing the issue itself. It's only in appeal that their standing becomes questionable.

[customerserviceguy]

55. You're right about the automatic loss

but it would still have to go back before Judge Walker to decide. If there's no legitimate opposition, he will rule again in favor of the anti-Prop H8 forces. But that will take some time.

The whole thing is still kind of murky, it may be many months before we know the final outcome, even if it never makes it to the Supreme Court.

[No Elephants]

121. NOTHING can change Walker's ruling in the case, unless a higher court overrules him.

[Sapphocrat]

71. Except that there's a stricter set of criteria...

...for standing when it goes to the circuit court.

Read Judge Walker's order of last week...

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/Final_stay_order.pdf

...in which he explains, in detail, how the proponents meet none of these criteria:

In deciding whether a stay is appropriate, the court looks to four factors:

(1) whether proponents have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits;

(2) whether proponents will be irreparably injured absent a stay;

(3) whether the stay will substantially injure other interested parties; and

(4) whether the stay is in the public interest.

It's worth the full read.

It's also pertinent that the U.S. Supreme Court takes a dim view of allowing defendant-intervenors to continue appealing in the absence of an appeal by the actual defendants (in this case, the State of California); cited are two cases specifically involving state ballot measures.

The problem with today's ruling is that the 9th did not explain its decision vis-a-vis any of these criteria. No one knows with complete certainty why they ruled as they did.

[No Elephants]

72. Let's hope that the standing issue ends this. But, I guess the jerks could appeal if they are found

not to have standing. then the Catholic extremists on the Supreme Court will have final word. At least standing will give them an out, if they want to duck an issue on the merits.

Either way, my son's best friend won't be able to marry. He died from lack of health insurance and money shortly after his brother's marriage, which occurred during the brief time same gender marriage was legal in California. That meant his mom only had to make one trip from Minnesota. And his brother's wedding anniversary will always be, at best, bittersweet.

Fuck Republicans. Fuck bigots. Fuck lack of affordable health care.


R.I.P. David

[and-justice-for-all]

52. Whats with the 'oh its not that bad" bullshit on here...what the fuck?

A) There should have never been a vote on this to begin with
B) Prop 8 is a violation of basic civil rights
C) The court also blatantly violated the constitution by ruling in Prop 8s favor to begin with; the court violated the church and state seperation clause and they can not upheld religious ideology.
D) People have a right to be pissed off about this Stay.

[CocaNova]

61. E)

All of the above X10.

[Occulus]

106. "Whats with the 'oh its not that bad" bullshit on here"??

Excuse me- is one of the Ignoreds upthread actually saying this isn't so bad a ruling/stay/opinion?

Seriously? Some shithead is really saying that?

[and-justice-for-all]

127. Yep, sure is...reada through the post..nt

[Occulus]

128. I had to log out to see who it was

What a despicable waste of 206 perfectly good human bones...

[FirstLight]

56. I am watching this for an entirely different reason

As someone who works in the Wedding Industry in Lake Tahoe, prop 8 was a huge blow to the industry. We were looking forward to expanding our clientele and offering some really cool packages. Now we have to wait once more, and the hetero weddings are actually DOWN the past couple years. Not only that, but it feels better to offer the same services to ALL...not to have to use the term 'spiritual committments' or the 'not legal marriage' little disclaimer...

I am for Gay Marriage for personal resons too, because it's sacred and love is love...but as one involved in the business, it's like CA is shooting itself in the foot on this.

Hope to see some resolution soon! I'd love to be booking some of these happy couples!

[Phil The Cat]

60. The Marriage and Divorce Industries NEED Gay Marriage

Straights are not keeping up!

Personally, I think ANYONE, gay or straight, who voluntarily enslaves themselves to another human being is NUTS!

But I guess that's just my jaded opinion! Just relieved there was no gay marriage to ensnare me a few years ago! Enough drama without lawyers and courts!

[Odin2005]

59. Crap!

[2 Much Tribulation]

63. The actual full text of the order (one main paragraph) can be read at this link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4506132

[Amerigo Vespucci]

70. California Gay Marriage on Hold as Case Is Appealed

Source: The New York Times

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court has extended a stay on same-sex marriages in California until it decides whether a ban on such unions is constitutional.

It is just the latest turn in a protracted legal battle over Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban.

The ruling, issued by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, came less than a week after a federal district judge, Vaughn R. Walker, lifted a stay he had imposed to allow proponents of the ban to argue why same-sex marriages should not proceed. On Aug. 4, Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional.

Even when lifting his stay on Thursday, Judge Walker allowed six days for the Ninth Circuit to review his ruling. That left many gay and lesbian couples and their supporters hopeful that same-sex marriages would resume Wednesday at 5 p.m., when Judge Walker’s stay would have expired.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/us/17prop.html?src=mv

[Mad_Dem_X]

93. This is ridiculous. n/t

[Politicub]

99. On being a second class citizen -- aka Gays are not welcome in America

Just got back from a cruise with a stop in Canada. For a short while, it felt good to have the Vermont marriage to my husband recognized by a country. But it also reminded me of how much of a second class citizen we LGBT folk are in our own country.

It made the customs process feel like a slap in the face. On the customs form, there is a place to list the number of family members traveling with you. My husband and I had to answer zero.

Having our marriage recognized by the state is of prime importance to achieve equality. It breaks my heart that in my "free" country that my marriage isn't recognized by 90 percent of it.