Gay-marriage opponents seek Prop. 8 r...

Gay-marriage opponents seek Prop. 8 review

There are 154 comments on the CBS News story from Feb 21, 2012, titled Gay-marriage opponents seek Prop. 8 review. In it, CBS News reports that:

Backers of California's same-sex marriage ban said Tuesday they will ask a federal appeals court in San Francisco to review the split decision by three of its judges that struck down the voter-approved law.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at CBS News.

First Prev
of 8
Next Last

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#1 Feb 21, 2012
Okay, anybody know the time table for this??? How long is THIS going to stretch out???

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#2 Feb 21, 2012
A bit of a surprise actually, I thought they might try a direct appeal to the SCOTUS given their rather public attitude towards the 9th Circuit, but I guess this way Cooper & Co can continue to get paid to lose another round.

FaFoxy

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#3 Feb 21, 2012
They'll lose. And SCOTUS will vote not to accept this case, if it gets that far.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#4 Feb 21, 2012
Gay Mom wrote:
Okay, anybody know the time table for this??? How long is THIS going to stretch out???
4-6 weeks to hear whether there will be an en banc hearing and when it will be if there is one, beyond that, only a guess at this point.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#5 Feb 21, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
A bit of a surprise actually, I thought they might try a direct appeal to the SCOTUS given their rather public attitude towards the 9th Circuit, but I guess this way Cooper & Co can continue to get paid to lose another round.
Exactly.....and there is no guarantee that the full 9th will even take their appeal!!!

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#6 Feb 21, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>4-6 weeks to hear whether there will be an en banc hearing and when it will be if there is one, beyond that, only a guess at this point.
I think the full 9th will move faster, at least I hope so......that way an appeal could still make SCOTUS before end of session......another wait and see period and also to see if the stay will remain in affect......by the way, they cut this pretty close to the deadline!!!

I see Imperial County is still trying to get permission to intervene as well!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Feb 21, 2012
It's more like 2-3 months just for the 9th to consider the en banc request. Even if they turn it down as most "experts" predict, the Prop 8 people then have the standard 90 day window to appeal to the SCOTUS.

So the EARLIEST this could be resolved even if everything goes our way would be Oct.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Feb 21, 2012
Obviously the anti-gays aren't as confident as they pretend to be, otherwise they would have appealed directly to the SCOTUS. There is simply no reason to go for an en banc hearing unless they just want to delay the inevitable loss or they hope the en banc panel will take the case and somehow make a broader ruling against them which in turn would have a better chance of being overturned by the SCOTUS.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#9 Feb 21, 2012
I think the proponents just want to drag this out as long as they can knowing that in the end, they will lose!!!

From the article:
The justices concluded that the law had no purpose other than to deny gay couples marriage, since California already grants them all the rights and benefits of marriage if they register as domestic partners.

This is why the proponents will eventually lose this argument!!!

The lone dissenting judge insisted that the ban could help ensure that children are raised by married, opposite-sex parents.

This is a fallacy by the Justice Smith and the proponents of Prop 8.......there is NO GUARANTEE that preventing Gays and Lesbians from marrying will have ANY impact on straights taking responsibilities for the sexual practices!!!

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#10 Feb 21, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Obviously the anti-gays aren't as confident as they pretend to be, otherwise they would have appealed directly to the SCOTUS. There is simply no reason to go for an en banc hearing unless they just want to delay the inevitable loss or they hope the en banc panel will take the case and somehow make a broader ruling against them which in turn would have a better chance of being overturned by the SCOTUS.
I would agree with your assessment......and this could be over with before the Election......but that's a big IF!!!

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

#11 Feb 21, 2012
Yeah, not only do I not understand how denying gay couples marriage will ensure children are raised by a mom and dad but how a judge could use this argument, since its obviously full of it, to render his ruling.

So denying gay marriage will stop heterosexuals from having unwanted children and there will no longer be a need for adoption. I guess the studies which prove gay parents are just as good, if not better, parents doesn't matter in a court if law.

“Love thy neighbor!”

Since: Dec 06

Westland , MI

#13 Feb 21, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>4-6 weeks to hear whether there will be an en banc hearing and when it will be if there is one, beyond that, only a guess at this point.
Thanks, Rick. I hate the waiting.
Aspirin Between My Legos

Media, PA

#15 Feb 21, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>4-6 weeks to hear whether there will be an en banc hearing and when it will be if there is one, beyond that, only a guess at this point.
No, much longer just to decide the en banc, usually. Then more weeks to draw the panel (apparently en banc can still mean a subset because this court has more than the usual number of members, if I recall correctly,) then more months with all new briefs to decide.

The key question is the stay. Following usual standards there is no reason not to lift it.

huffingtonpost has a good rundown of all this as of today, 2/21.
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#16 Feb 21, 2012
Aspirin Between My Legos wrote:
<quoted text>
No, much longer just to decide the en banc, usually. Then more weeks to draw the panel (apparently en banc can still mean a subset because this court has more than the usual number of members, if I recall correctly,) then more months with all new briefs to decide.
The key question is the stay. Following usual standards there is no reason not to lift it.
huffingtonpost has a good rundown of all this as of today, 2/21.
Perhaps they appealed it to the full 9th because Judge Reinhardt had been party to 53 decisions between 1994 and 2004 that were reversed by SCOTUS and they wanted to give the 9th a chance to review it first.. In the last term Judge Reinhardt was party to six decisions that were appealed to SCOTUS and all six were reversed. Of the three that he wrote the opinion on,all three were reversed unanimously.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#17 Feb 21, 2012
Aspirin Between My Legos wrote:
<quoted text>
No, much longer just to decide the en banc, usually. Then more weeks to draw the panel (apparently en banc can still mean a subset because this court has more than the usual number of members, if I recall correctly,) then more months with all new briefs to decide.
The key question is the stay. Following usual standards there is no reason not to lift it.
huffingtonpost has a good rundown of all this as of today, 2/21.
I read on one of the legal blogs shortly after the appeal was released that the 9th's usual response time for an en banc appeal was about 4-6 weeks, it's after that point that you prepare for the long haul if you get one.

FaFoxy

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

#18 Feb 21, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps they appealed it to the full 9th because Judge Reinhardt had been party to 53 decisions between 1994 and 2004 that were reversed by SCOTUS and they wanted to give the 9th a chance to review it first.. In the last term Judge Reinhardt was party to six decisions that were appealed to SCOTUS and all six were reversed. Of the three that he wrote the opinion on,all three were reversed unanimously.
Where'd u get your info from ? I'd like to read about those cases.
downhill246

Delray Beach, FL

#21 Feb 21, 2012
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Where'd u get your info from ? I'd like to read about those cases.
Reinhardt Reversed for Third Time in Same Case
http://volokh.com/2009/11/16/reinhardt-revers...

Fun With Numbers (9th Circuit Edition)
http://boaltalk.blogspot.com/2011/06/fun-with...

Overturned Early and Often
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal...
Aspirin Between My Legos

Media, PA

#22 Feb 21, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps they appealed it to the full 9th because Judge Reinhardt had been party to 53 decisions between 1994 and 2004 that were reversed by SCOTUS and they wanted to give the 9th a chance to review it first.. In the last term Judge Reinhardt was party to six decisions that were appealed to SCOTUS and all six were reversed. Of the three that he wrote the opinion on,all three were reversed unanimously.
Your typically suspect sounding gripe of a post actually suggests - if taken at face value - that the bigots should go right to the US Supreme Court.

Since the 9th is so liberal and all. Given that how is the 9th likely to find differently from the its three judge panel? Whereas, by your reckoning, the US Supreme Court is almost a sure bet to overturn the Prop 8 ruling.

“WAY TO GO”

Since: Mar 11

IRELAND

#23 Feb 21, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps they appealed it to the full 9th because Judge Reinhardt had been party to 53 decisions between 1994 and 2004 that were reversed by SCOTUS and they wanted to give the 9th a chance to review it first.. In the last term Judge Reinhardt was party to six decisions that were appealed to SCOTUS and all six were reversed. Of the three that he wrote the opinion on,all three were reversed unanimously.
This ruling IS NOT going to be reviewed or reversed.......why? Because the Justices kept the ruling specifically to California.
Aspirin Between My Legos

Media, PA

#24 Feb 21, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I read on one of the legal blogs shortly after the appeal was released that the 9th's usual response time for an en banc appeal was about 4-6 weeks, it's after that point that you prepare for the long haul if you get one.
I don't doubt you read that. That four to six weeks differs from what I read.

>When the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling earlier this month, Chris Stoll of the National Center for Lesbian Rights shared with us what the process of rehearing might involve:

>It usually takes months for the en banc reconsideration to be completed. If a party asks for en banc review, the request is sent to all of the 20-something active judges on the court. Memos are often exchanged between the judges before a vote takes place on whether to take the case en banc. If they take it, names are drawn for the panel and a whole new series of briefs are usually filed, which takes a few more months. Then they hold oral argument and issue a decision. It is really almost like starting the whole appeal all over again.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-bink/prop-...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
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
News Washington, West Coast states in legal fight ag... Sat hawkholliday 3
News U.S. Supreme Court partly rejects Trump in late... Jul 20 Winning Yet 5
News Gorsuch can't escape travel ban at San Francisc... Jul 19 Lawrence Wolf 24
News Court: Detained immigrant children entitled to ... Jul 6 Truth 4
News 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to weigh Dona... Jul 5 C Kersey 10
News Trump travel ban: U.S. Court clears way for int... Jun '17 Jeff Brightone 1
News Trump travel ban dealt another blow, faces high... Jun '17 stupid 1
More from around the web