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

Jan 12, 2013 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.towleroad.com

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.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 13 of13

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 13 of13
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••