The Supreme Court, Prop 8, and DOMA: The Standing Question

There are 13 comments on the www.towleroad.com story from Jan 12, 2013, titled The Supreme Court, Prop 8, and DOMA: The Standing Question. In it, www.towleroad.com reports that:

Standing is like an admission rule at a bar. Before you can even get through the door, you have to fulfill certain basic requirements, like being over 21, appropriately attired, and not already drunk and disorderly. And, in determining whether you meet the requirements, the bouncer looks at evidence: your driver's license, your general demeanor, and your clothes.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.towleroad.com.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#1 Jan 12, 2013
Interesting analysis.

I still think it's most likely the standing question was added (by both sides) as an "out" to prevent a ruling their side doesn't agree with.

While GRANTING standing where none exists could set a bad precedent with far reaching consequences in future cases, DENYING standing where it actually DOES exist wouldn't have the same effect.

I think our victories this past November make it more likely that DOMA is overturned while Prop 8 is upheld.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#2 Jan 12, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Interesting analysis.
I still think it's most likely the standing question was added (by both sides) as an "out" to prevent a ruling their side doesn't agree with.
While GRANTING standing where none exists could set a bad precedent with far reaching consequences in future cases, DENYING standing where it actually DOES exist wouldn't have the same effect.
I think our victories this past November make it more likely that DOMA is overturned while Prop 8 is upheld.
I think DOMA will be rules unconstitutional as well as Prop. 8 being ruled unconstitutional.

And you can thank the DEMOCRATS and that IMPECHED BASTARD Clinton for gleefully signing DOMA into law in the first place. THE BASTARD !

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#3 Jan 12, 2013
What is odd here is that they are only concerned enough about the question of standing in the DOMA case to make it a separate issue, when it's always been the fundamental issue to the appeal of Prop 8. I'd think the question of whether the proponents of the Amendment have any right to be there in the first place would be important enough to be addressed by itself, considering that they walk in against precedent.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#4 Jan 12, 2013
I seriously doubt either case will be rejected on the standing issue.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5 Jan 12, 2013
What better way to get back at Congress for putting them in this rather unenviable position in the first place? Due to the configuration of events, the only way to defend their law now is by kicking an octogenarian granny while she's down. Cutting off Congress's assumed authority to continue to defend laws once the Executive throws in the towel is in keeping with the bent of this particular Court and it ducks the whole question of whether there is a right to marry someone of the same sex for the time being.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#6 Jan 12, 2013
If the Intervenors lacked Standing, then there was no opposition to the original Petition before Chief District Judge Walker. The petition would be granted without hearing, and a lot of subsequent Findings and elements of the Decision become unnecessary and cease to exist.

Ouch.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Jan 12, 2013
snyper wrote:
If the Intervenors lacked Standing, then there was no opposition to the original Petition before Chief District Judge Walker. The petition would be granted without hearing, and a lot of subsequent Findings and elements of the Decision become unnecessary and cease to exist.
Ouch.
Actually Judge Walker's ruling would likely stand in that case because standing to appeal his ruling- which is what the SCOTUS will decide- is different than the ability to defend Prop 8 in trial court.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#8 Jan 12, 2013
As far as DOMA is concerned, can anyone cite a case where standing was granted to congress by SCOTUS when the administration decided not to defend the constiitutionality of a statute ?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#9 Jan 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Judge Walker's ruling would likely stand in that case because standing to appeal his ruling- which is what the SCOTUS will decide- is different than the ability to defend Prop 8 in trial court.
I'm suggesting that the SCOTUS may strip it down further. The Standing of the Intervenors in Prop h8, was decided by the STATE High Court NOT the SCOTUS, which has Ruled in other Cases that such wouldbe Intervenors do NOT have Standing. If the SCOTUS goes that route, they may Rule granting the original Petition and invalidate the rest of the proceedings and it's content. The result, lacking a Class Action, would allow a Decision for the Petitioners ONLY.

THAT would be the narrowest possible Ruling, and completely in character with our opposition on the SCOTUS. It would also settle some developing Standing issues regarding wouldbe Intervenors in Federal Cases.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Jan 13, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
As far as DOMA is concerned, can anyone cite a case where standing was granted to congress by SCOTUS when the administration decided not to defend the constiitutionality of a statute ?
I do believe it has happened in the past, but I haven't bother to google it because it doens't really matter what they've done in the past. The current SCOTUS can justify whatever they have a majority for.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#11 Jan 13, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm suggesting that the SCOTUS may strip it down further. The Standing of the Intervenors in Prop h8, was decided by the STATE High Court NOT the SCOTUS, which has Ruled in other Cases that such wouldbe Intervenors do NOT have Standing. If the SCOTUS goes that route, they may Rule granting the original Petition and invalidate the rest of the proceedings and it's content. The result, lacking a Class Action, would allow a Decision for the Petitioners ONLY.
THAT would be the narrowest possible Ruling, and completely in character with our opposition on the SCOTUS. It would also settle some developing Standing issues regarding wouldbe Intervenors in Federal Cases.
Any such decision only for the petitioners would be resolved by the state then extending marriage rights to all within the state, either by executive order or legislation. Unfortunately that would wipe out all of Judge Walker's findings, but the end result would be the same.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#12 Jan 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I do believe it has happened in the past, but I haven't bother to google it because it doens't really matter what they've done in the past. The current SCOTUS can justify whatever they have a majority for.
I agree. They don't seem to give any weight at all to stare decesis (sp?) anymore.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Jan 13, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Any such decision only for the petitioners would be resolved by the state then extending marriage rights to all within the state, either by executive order or legislation. Unfortunately that would wipe out all of Judge Walker's findings, but the end result would be the same.
The removal of Walker's findings would BE the point, and I'm not so certain that the effect would be upon ANY but the petitioners. It need not be unless others brought suit. Fortunately, wCali currently has a sympathetic Governor, though he remains snarled in rightwing business pressures as he works to repair the State production base.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News YouTube Given Permission to Show Anti-Islam Movie Wed Mikey 5
News Guam gay marriage case won't wait for US high c... May 8 Robin Hood 1
News Santa Cruz Nazi salute civil rights suit winds ... Apr 28 to a Pedantic Blo... 38
News High Courts To Consider Lawsuits Over Personal ... Apr 27 goonsquad 1
News Bonds' obstruction conviction thrown out by app... Apr 24 Cordwainer Trout 2
News Judge returns ultra-rich club founder Tim Blixs... Apr 22 Sterkfontein Swar... 2
News Guam attorney general orders gay marriage to mo... Apr '15 okimar 3
More from around the web