Yes, that's exactly what happened. But, they expedited the case as was asked, and they probably thought that they would be finished with the case soon. That has not haapened, obviously.<quoted text>
I never said it was a justification to issue a stay. But since none of the usual conditions for issuing a stay were met- demonstrable harm, likely to win on appeal, etc, etc- I can only conclude that the 9th Circuit was playing it safe by issuing a stay.
The court chose a compromise position and issued a stay, but expedited the case (and, quite a bit for the Ninth Circuit). This situation has changed.<quoted text>
Olson & Boies argued against a stay from Judge Walker and a stay from the 9th the first time; how'd that turn out?
I'm sure that Olson and Boies are quite pleased that you do not question their expertise.**snark**<quoted text>
I'm not doubting the ability of Olson & Boies, but the 9th Circuit is obviously playing it safe and slowing down this case as much as possible. They had no reason to issue a stay the first time, yet they did. They had no reason to send the case back down to the California Court, yet they did.
The Ninth Circuit probably thought that the CASC would quickly answer their question, which has not happened. Afterall, how can the question of standing (for the state) be that difficult? The judges at the Ninth Circuit are chomping at the bit to rule on the merits of the case. That's why they sent the certified question. They hope what the CASC decides will help them with jurisdictional issues (however, I doubt it will). They don't want the SCOTUS to rebuke them again over this issue.
My hopes are not up. I stated that the chances are 50/50 that the Ninth Circuit will vacate the stay. I'm sure that they'd rather maintain the staus quo if they can. But, I think they will need to have better reasons this time if they choose not to vacate. I don't think they want this case to linger on. While it could take till 2015 to be resolved, I strongly doubt that it will take that long. It should be resolved by late 2013 at least.<quoted text>
I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see any reason for thinking the 9th Circuit will lift their own stay. I see no point in getting our hopes up only to be disappointed once again. Let this case play out, accept the fact that a final resolution isn't likely until 2015. If something else DOES happen, then we'll all be pleasantly suprised!