BREAKING: Court of Appeals issues stay in Prop 8 case (no marriages)

[FreeState]

VIa email:

Docket Text:
Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and SIDNEY R. THOMAS) 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). IT IS SO ORDERED. <7441574> (JS)


Here's the PDF of the ruling and docket times etc.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35980488/CA9Doc-14

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). IT IS SO ORDERED.

[davidinalameda]

1. here's a link

http://www.towleroad.com/2010/08/federal-appeals-court-grants-stay-of-prop-8-decision.html

[Newsjock]

2. Fuck them and their "procreative" marriage

I want every infertile couple's marriage annulled now -- or, better yet, put on hold until the Supreme Court rules.

Mandatory fertility testing for all couples, now. Eat shit.

[liberal N proud]

3. I don't like your decision so I will just get me another judge

One judge two judge, three, the decision can hang in limbo until it gets to the top!

[FreeState]

5. The good news is they specifically point out they doubt they have standing

so even when it gets to the court of Appeals the stay could be thrown out in Dec. The court is also fast tracking this - 3 months (thats very short for federal courts).

[hlthe2b]

4. Perhaps ALL marriages should be halted until then....

it would be only fair.... ;)

Disappointing for our GLBT folks, but this too will pass, I am confident.

[snot]

6. Here's the case they refer to re- the "lack of standing" issue:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-974.ZS.html :

ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH et al. v. ARIZONA et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 95-974. Argued December 4, 1996 -- Decided March 3, 1997

(snip)

"(a) Grave doubts exist as to the standing of petitioners AOE and Park to pursue appellate review under Article III's case or controversy requirement. Standing to defend on appeal in the place of an original defendant demands that the litigant possess "a direct stake in the outcome." Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 62. Petitioners' primary argument--that, as initiative proponents, they have a quasi legislative interest in defending the measure they successfully sponsored--is dubious because they are not elected state legislators, authorized by state law to represent the State's interests, see Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72, 82. Furthermore, this Court has never identified initiative proponents as Article III qualified defenders. Cf. Don't Bankrupt Washington Committee v. Continental Ill. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 460 U.S. 1077. Their assertion of representational or associational standing is also problematic, absent the concrete injury that would confer standing upon AOE members in their own right, see, e.g., Food and Commercial Workers v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U. S. ___, ___, and absent anything in Article XXVIII's state court citizen suit provision that could support standing for Arizona residents in general, or AOE in particular, to defend the Article's constitutionality in federal court. Nevertheless, this Court need not definitively resolve the standing of AOE and Park to proceed as they did, but assumes such standing arguendo in order to analyze the question of mootness occasioned by originating plaintiff Yniguez's departure from state employment. See, e.g., Burke v. Barnes, 479 U.S. 361, 363, 364, n. Pp. 18-21."

(snip)

[FreeState]

7. That is very good news for marriage equality advocates

The court is basically saying were issuing a stay until we can hear these arguments because we have concern that you cant appeal because you look like you don't have standing.

[Brickbat]

8. Well, hell.

[scarletlib]

9. Why?

This totally sucks!

[kestrel91316]

10. Boooooo!!!! Hissssss!!!! Bastards.