California gay wedding ban ruling due Tuesday in Proposition 8 case

Feb 6, 2012 Full story: The Campbell Reporter 50

A federal appeals court on Tuesday will decide the legality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#1 Feb 6, 2012
Here's my predication:
1)Yes, the proponents will be granted standing.

2)No, Judge Walker's ruling will not be vacated because of his sexual orientation or his relationship.

3)Yes, they will uphold Judge Walker's ruling on the merits.

The ruling will be narrowly applied to California.

And regardless of how the ruling comes down......an appeal will happen!!!
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#2 Feb 6, 2012
I was just wondering if this case was ever going to be decided when I saw this article.

I think Judge Walker's decision will be upheld.

The anti-equality people will appeal to the full 9th circuit court, and I don't think the full 9th circuit will agree to hear the case.

And SCOTUS will decline to hear the case also.

I think SCOTUS will agree to hear a marraige equality case, probably within 10 years, but I don't think SCOTUS will agree to hear this case.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#3 Feb 6, 2012
Tucksun Jack wrote:
I was just wondering if this case was ever going to be decided when I saw this article.
I think Judge Walker's decision will be upheld.
The anti-equality people will appeal to the full 9th circuit court, and I don't think the full 9th circuit will agree to hear the case.
And SCOTUS will decline to hear the case also.
I think SCOTUS will agree to hear a marraige equality case, probably within 10 years, but I don't think SCOTUS will agree to hear this case.
I'm not sure an appeal to SCOTUS is possible if the appeal to the entire 9Th is denied.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#4 Feb 6, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not sure an appeal to SCOTUS is possible if the appeal to the entire 9Th is denied.
The full 9th more than likely would not take an appeal.....and I seriously doubt SCOTUS will hear an appeal at this time, but it will depend on how the 9th rules!!!

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#5 Feb 6, 2012
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not sure an appeal to SCOTUS is possible if the appeal to the entire 9Th is denied.
I think SCOTUS can do whatever it decides to do. At least they can tell the 9'th to reconsider their decision.

Frankly, I think the decision will depend on how confident conservatives are of the outcome. I don't think either conservatives or liberals want to set a precedent upholding marriage equality at this time.

DNF

“Religious Freedom to Marry”

Since: Apr 07

Newark OH / Baltimore MD

#6 Feb 6, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
The full 9th more than likely would not take an appeal.....and I seriously doubt SCOTUS will hear an appeal at this time, but it will depend on how the 9th rules!!!
Well you have pointed out the many variables possible in the ruling. The proponents standing issue etc. I'm hopeful we will get a very good strong ruling in our favor.

“Married 6/17/08”

Since: Feb 07

Porterville, CA

#7 Feb 6, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
Here's my predication:
1)Yes, the proponents will be granted standing.
2)No, Judge Walker's ruling will not be vacated because of his sexual orientation or his relationship.
3)Yes, they will uphold Judge Walker's ruling on the merits.
The ruling will be narrowly applied to California.
And regardless of how the ruling comes down......an appeal will happen!!!
Just read the email notification from the Court.

My predictions:
1) Neither Imperial County nor the Proponents have "Standing";
2) Judge Walker's decision is upheld;
3) Stay is lifted by the end of the week.

They may also put a clause in that in effect passes any further appeal to SCOTUS.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#8 Feb 6, 2012
jcofe wrote:
<quoted text>
Just read the email notification from the Court.
My predictions:
1) Neither Imperial County nor the Proponents have "Standing";
2) Judge Walker's decision is upheld;
3) Stay is lifted by the end of the week.
They may also put a clause in that in effect passes any further appeal to SCOTUS.
I'm not sure why you think proponents will lose standing. The court seemed to have a big problem with that issue and asked the California Supreme Court for guidance. Why would they have asked if they were going to ignore the advice?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Feb 6, 2012
jcofe wrote:
<quoted text>
Just read the email notification from the Court.
My predictions:
1) Neither Imperial County nor the Proponents have "Standing";
2) Judge Walker's decision is upheld;
3) Stay is lifted by the end of the week.
They may also put a clause in that in effect passes any further appeal to SCOTUS.
You don't understand how the judicial system works.

1- If they don't grant standing, then they won't rule on the merits of the case because it will be moot.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#10 Feb 6, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
Here's my predication:
1)Yes, the proponents will be granted standing.
2)No, Judge Walker's ruling will not be vacated because of his sexual orientation or his relationship.
3)Yes, they will uphold Judge Walker's ruling on the merits.
The ruling will be narrowly applied to California.
And regardless of how the ruling comes down......an appeal will happen!!!
I concur.

In addition, I predict the 9th will stay their own decision pending appeal, but in the end the SCOTUS declines to take the case.

Of course it's anyone's guess how long THAT decision will take, so we'll STILL be waiting for marriage equality in California for awhile.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#11 Feb 6, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
I'm not sure why you think proponents will lose standing. The court seemed to have a big problem with that issue and asked the California Supreme Court for guidance. Why would they have asked if they were going to ignore the advice?
The Appeals Court panel is between a rock and a hard place on the standing issue. The existing SCOTUS precedent on the issue is that the proponents don't have standing (a case where the Supremes whacked the knuckles of one of the Judges on the panel hearing the appeal), if the state bails in a case, that's it. They sought guidance from the State Supreme Court to either find a way around what stood in their way of ruling on the actual trial decision or to give them an easy out. They can still bail, citing the lack of standing, but I think they're stuck now, having to go along with California's really bad finding and now they have to rule on the case in its entirety.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#12 Feb 6, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
Here's my predication:
1)Yes, the proponents will be granted standing.
2)No, Judge Walker's ruling will not be vacated because of his sexual orientation or his relationship.
3)Yes, they will uphold Judge Walker's ruling on the merits.
The ruling will be narrowly applied to California.
And regardless of how the ruling comes down......an appeal will happen!!!
Thanks for what I imagine was a heads up, but I haven't been able to read or send messages on this site for the better part of a month now. I've sent maybe a dozen bug reports, but they still haven't found a fix other than making unread messages in my inbox vanish.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#13 Feb 6, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for what I imagine was a heads up, but I haven't been able to read or send messages on this site for the better part of a month now. I've sent maybe a dozen bug reports, but they still haven't found a fix other than making unread messages in my inbox vanish.
I have those as well and can sometimes only see if someone sent me a message if I check my e-mail attached to my nic.

Tomorrow will only truly be another step in the process.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

#14 Feb 6, 2012
jcofe wrote:
<quoted text>
Just read the email notification from the Court.
My predictions:
1) Neither Imperial County nor the Proponents have "Standing";
2) Judge Walker's decision is upheld;
3) Stay is lifted by the end of the week.
They may also put a clause in that in effect passes any further appeal to SCOTUS.
I understand now:-)
Sir Andrew

United States

#15 Feb 6, 2012
You each have very interesting views on this. One asked whether appeal to SCOTUS was not allowed if the full appeals court denied the request to hear the appeal. It is not disallowed; the losers can appeal directly to SCOTUS.

But whether they have standing is the big issue. The appeals court asked the California Supremes for their ruling on this not for advice, but to see their reasoning. The California Constitution gives the proponents of an initiative standing if the state declines to appeal a court decision to kill a proposition passed by the voters, but only in the state courts. It's very specific on this.

The federal courts, as mentioned above, do not give standing in this instance. If the appeals court grants standing, that may be the issue that SCOTUS decides to address, without toucning the marriage issue. If SCOTUS says there is no standing, then the case is mooted and marriage equality begins again. And there is no one to carry the marriage case forward, meaning the SCOTUS folks won't have to deal with it.

And I can't see them, or any court, overturning the ruling on Judge Walker. That challenge is the funny part of this whole ordeal.

In any event, Tuesday is going to be exciting.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#16 Feb 6, 2012
jcofe wrote:
<quoted text>
Just read the email notification from the Court.
My predictions:
1) Neither Imperial County nor the Proponents have "Standing";
2) Judge Walker's decision is upheld;
3) Stay is lifted by the end of the week.
They may also put a clause in that in effect passes any further appeal to SCOTUS.
I agree.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#17 Feb 6, 2012
Sir Andrew wrote:
You each have very interesting views on this. One asked whether appeal to SCOTUS was not allowed if the full appeals court denied the request to hear the appeal. It is not disallowed; the losers can appeal directly to SCOTUS.
But whether they have standing is the big issue. The appeals court asked the California Supremes for their ruling on this not for advice, but to see their reasoning. The California Constitution gives the proponents of an initiative standing if the state declines to appeal a court decision to kill a proposition passed by the voters, but only in the state courts. It's very specific on this.
The federal courts, as mentioned above, do not give standing in this instance. If the appeals court grants standing, that may be the issue that SCOTUS decides to address, without toucning the marriage issue. If SCOTUS says there is no standing, then the case is mooted and marriage equality begins again. And there is no one to carry the marriage case forward, meaning the SCOTUS folks won't have to deal with it.
And I can't see them, or any court, overturning the ruling on Judge Walker. That challenge is the funny part of this whole ordeal.
In any event, Tuesday is going to be exciting.
That would be a nice out for SCOTUS, assuming that they don't want to rule on the issue. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I suspect the conservatives on the Robertson court are only too anxious to rule.
Tucksun Jack

Tucson, AZ

#18 Feb 6, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be a nice out for SCOTUS, assuming that they don't want to rule on the issue. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I suspect the conservatives on the Robertson court are only too anxious to rule.
SCOTUS will NOT agreee to hear this case even if it gets that far. It's not the right case, nor the right time for even the SCOTUS justices to agree to hear a case such as this.

Time is on our side.
Pat Robertson s Fatwass

Bethlehem, PA

#19 Feb 6, 2012
What's really at stake here, thanks to Ellen, is whether the preponderance of new marriages in CA over the next months will be registered at JC Penney or not....
Sir Andrew

United States

#20 Feb 6, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be a nice out for SCOTUS, assuming that they don't want to rule on the issue. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I suspect the conservatives on the Robertson court are only too anxious to rule.
Actually, I think the conservatives on the court are eager for a huge delay on handling this issue. By every standard of a conservative view of the Constitution, there is no way they could rule against gay marriage. Especially after the court has already twice ruled that marriage is a basic right, without specifying it as a man/woman thing, just a human thing. Add that to the Constitution's guarantee of equal rights for ALL Americans, and even strict constructionists are hogtied. Roberts, Scalia and the rest will have a hard time reasoning themselves out of the corner into which they've painted themselves.

I'm giddy with anticipation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
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
Court tosses Washington man's porn conviction Sep 14 californio 2
Hearing over gay marriage laws underway Sep 10 Professor Jumper 46
Idaho, Nevada, Hawaii gay marriage cases in court Sep 8 Yakitori 15
Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada gay marriage laws in court Sep 8 WeTheSheeple 1
Reno Couple Awaits 9th Circuit Appeal In Gay Ma... Sep 2 WeTheSheeple 2
Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares fo... (Mar '13) Sep 1 Terra Firma 1,568
Challenges to gay marriage bans: Where they stand Aug 25 Lawrence Wolf 64
•••

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••