Another round for Prop 8 in Calif. state court?

Mar 22, 2013 Full story: www.washingtonblade.com 36

Prop 8 proponents say the Supreme Court may want to send the case back to state court.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Mar 22, 2013
A very interesting twist on the case.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#2 Mar 22, 2013
I believe that it is highly unlikely that SCOTUS will return Prop 8 back to a State Supreme Court to review the Standing issue for the proponents of Prop 8......this is yet another stall tactic and I don't believe it's going to work!!!

Besides, the proponents asked for intervention by SCOTUS and now they seem to have a feeling of eminent ending and not the way they want!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#3 Mar 22, 2013
snyper wrote:
A very interesting twist on the case.
Not likely to happen......and if they had truly wanted this sent back to the CSSC....why didn't they come right out and request that?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#4 Mar 22, 2013
I don't thnk it will be retunred to the California courts. And doing so woud be a big mistake as it would only drag this thing out longer and delay the inevitable result.

"Justice delayed is justice denied"

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#5 Mar 22, 2013
I smell the leaden stench of desperation.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#6 Mar 22, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I smell the leaden stench of desperation.
Exactly.......personally, I'm surprise that the proponents of Prop 8 would even try this stunt.....but I guess they have nothing to truly lose......lol!!!

Since: Jun 08

Redlands, CA

#7 Mar 23, 2013
This case is a federal case not a state case. Its impossible!

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#8 Mar 23, 2013
I get why they are doing this, they don't want to be to blame for killing not just California's amendment, but the rest of them as well. If they can get the case bounced on the standing issue, Walker's ruling stands, but only as a bludgeon to be used in a whole slew of new cases against every other amendment that they won't have to defend. They really should have cut their losses with the 9th Circuit decision. Now their place in history is being the squadron leader for the 30 odd amendments heading for Macho Grande.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Mar 23, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
I smell the leaden stench of desperation.
BINGO!

Delay & stall has been their tactic all along because they're afraid of a final ruling.

Even if they should somehow eventually win and the SCOTUS upholds Prop 8, delaying a final ruling as long as possible delays the eventual referendum vote to overturn it.

They know we have the numbers now in California (60% approve), but they also know we won't push for a vote until this case is resolved. So their ONLY hope is to delay the inevitable as long as possible.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Mar 23, 2013
That said, I wouldn't be suprised in the least if some other kind of delay came up the way this case has gone so far.

Maybe the SCOTUS will vacate the entire thing on the standing issue and order the district court to start all over with a new trial.

Who knows.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Mar 23, 2013
FYI-

Audio of the SCOTUS arguments will be available on the same day (but not live).

1 pm on the 26th (Prop 8)
2 pm on the 27th (DOMA)

www.supremecourt.gov

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Mar 23, 2013
mrSteven wrote:
This case is a federal case not a state case. Its impossible!
Not exactly. The Prop8 case was before Federal District Chief Judge Walker, and it was sent to the California State Supreme Court for a ruling regarding California Law and Procedures. If there is a question in the SCotUS's minds regarding California Law or Judicial Procedure they could submit it to the SCotSC for an advisory Ruling.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Mar 23, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
I get why they are doing this, they don't want to be to blame for killing not just California's amendment, but the rest of them as well. If they can get the case bounced on the standing issue, Walker's ruling stands, but only as a bludgeon to be used in a whole slew of new cases against every other amendment that they won't have to defend. They really should have cut their losses with the 9th Circuit decision. Now their place in history is being the squadron leader for the 30 odd amendments heading for Macho Grande.
It would be wonderful if the SCotUS chose to deal with the matter in that way, but considering their track record I am pessimistic.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#14 Mar 23, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
That said, I wouldn't be suprised in the least if some other kind of delay came up the way this case has gone so far.
Maybe the SCOTUS will vacate the entire thing on the standing issue and order the district court to start all over with a new trial.
Who knows.
TOPIX needs a "scary!" judge it icon.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#15 Mar 23, 2013
snyper wrote:
It would be wonderful if the SCotUS chose to deal with the matter in that way, but considering their track record I am pessimistic.
Their only available option which doesn't keep this issue in federal courts across the country for the next five years or longer is to kill all the amendments along with DOMA. Whether that will be coming with a right to marry, that coin is still in the air. They can hold off on that until one of the cases making their way through state courts come up as a direct challenge to Baker, but if they kill DOMA, they have to kill the amendments that prohibit cross state recognition, even if they don't make the states marry us.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Mar 24, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Their only available option which doesn't keep this issue in federal courts across the country for the next five years or longer is to kill all the amendments along with DOMA. Whether that will be coming with a right to marry, that coin is still in the air. They can hold off on that until one of the cases making their way through state courts come up as a direct challenge to Baker, but if they kill DOMA, they have to kill the amendments that prohibit cross state recognition, even if they don't make the states marry us.
I have to disagree.

There has always been a public policy exception to the FFC in regards to marriage; I don't see that changing now.

This has ALWAYS been a 3 step process-

1. SCOTUS overturning DOMA.
2. Pass marriage equality in more states.
3. SCOTUS overturning remaing marriage bans in the south & plains states.

No way this SCOTUS does it all in one step.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#17 Mar 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to disagree.
There has always been a public policy exception to the FFC in regards to marriage; I don't see that changing now.
This has ALWAYS been a 3 step process-
1. SCOTUS overturning DOMA.
2. Pass marriage equality in more states.
3. SCOTUS overturning remaing marriage bans in the south & plains states.
No way this SCOTUS does it all in one step.
As usual, you're wrong.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#18 Mar 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
I have to disagree.
There has always been a public policy exception to the FFC in regards to marriage; I don't see that changing now.
This has ALWAYS been a 3 step process-
1. SCOTUS overturning DOMA.
2. Pass marriage equality in more states.
3. SCOTUS overturning remaing marriage bans in the south & plains states.
No way this SCOTUS does it all in one step.
To be honest with you, a FF&C argument hadn't even occurred to me, my thought is that killing DOMA creates an obvious equal protection problem for the state amendments. The feds are going to have to say you're married, regardless of where you live and that makes those amendments denying cross recognition a target. When it comes to FF&C, most states have more or less bound themselves to In re the Estate of May and that is that if a marriage was legal at the time and place celebrated, unless it is a case where one or more of a state's residents crossed state lines to enter into a prohibited marriage AND the law prohibited you from doing that, a state has to take what it gets. No matter how much that marriage would give most people the willies.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Mar 24, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, you're wrong.
Then show me one state which was forced to recognize every marriage from all the other states based on FFC.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Mar 24, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>To be honest with you, a FF&C argument hadn't even occurred to me, my thought is that killing DOMA creates an obvious equal protection problem for the state amendments. The feds are going to have to say you're married, regardless of where you live and that makes those amendments denying cross recognition a target. When it comes to FF&C, most states have more or less bound themselves to In re the Estate of May and that is that if a marriage was legal at the time and place celebrated, unless it is a case where one or more of a state's residents crossed state lines to enter into a prohibited marriage AND the law prohibited you from doing that, a state has to take what it gets. No matter how much that marriage would give most people the willies.
No problem at all. The feds can recognize the marriage while the state doesn't; just like they did with inter-racial marriages, and they currently do with 1st cousin marriages.

It's gonna take another SCOTUS ruling to force states to recognize all marriages, even if they don't perform them.

That's my point; this will almost certainly be a multiple step process. Anyone hoping for a grand solution will be disappointed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Judge overturns Montana's gay marriage ban Nov 24 Reverend Alan 59
Supreme Court denies stay, illegal immigrants t... Nov 22 Ace Millner 6
Supreme Court halts order allowing illegal immi... Nov 22 Ace McMillan 11
Couples Anxious to Grab First Idaho Same-Sex Ma... Nov 20 The real zeke 24
US District Court of Montana Strikes down same-... Nov 20 Sterkfontein Swar... 1
Sandoval: No Need for Court to Rehear Gay Marriage Nov 14 Yakitori 2
A look at whata s next for gay marriage in US Nov 10 WeTheSheeple 3

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE