Incoming California Attorney General "Will Not Defend Prop 8"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Gelfin, Dec 1, 2010.

  1. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #1
    The day before Thanksgiving, LA County District Attorney Steve Cooley conceded a very narrow California Attorney General race to Kamala Harris. The San Francisco District Attorney cum AG designate delayed her victory celebration until after the holiday, but in remarks last night at the Delancey Street Foundation in San Francisco, stated unequivocally that her office will not defend the state constitutional amendment prohibiting California from recognizing same-sex marriages.

    On Monday the Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments on the appeal of the August ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker finding the amendment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. For want of an official defendant, a substantial question before the appeals court is whether the remaining supporters, a group of private citizens who supported Proposition 8, have standing to challenge the ruling.
     
  2. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #2
    Prop 8 needs to die and you guys need a presedence to be set that says that it is unconstitutional to try to discriminate against gays who wants to marry.

    Or something like that.
     
  3. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #3
    This is a mistake. Prop 8 needs to be defended to the USSC so the USSC can issue a ruling that has precedential affect throughout the US. But hey, what do I know. A feel good result in one state but that does nothing to stop the bigots elsewhere is totally worth is. Especially if it leaves open the door for a worse case to come along that makes prop 8 look like a holiday.
     
  4. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #4
    My apologies, I thought it had reached the US Supreme Court now.
     
  5. FreeState macrumors 68000

    FreeState

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #5
    Nope - the 9th Circuit of Appeals is scheduled to hear the appeal on Dec 6 (next Monday). It will be in two parts - an hour to Standing and an hour to the Appeal. Most are predicting the groups appealing have no standing and the case will end there, leaving marriage equality in CA only, not going to the Supreme Court for the time being.
     
  6. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #6
    Well, that would be sad. I bet that other idiots would jump on any chance to front this case in other states unless the USSC actually sets a presedence regarding it.
     
  7. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #7
    I agree, the thinking here needs to be longterm and not short-term. The only way they're going to get real change it to pursue it to the national level much like segregation.
     
  8. Gelfin thread starter macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #8
    We have fetishized the Supreme Court somewhat. It is a too-simplistic view that only a ruling from the top "counts." Although Walker's ruling will not have immediate nationwide effect, it will serve as a strong precedent for other courts. I am hardly the expert (oh CalBoy…), but I am given to understand that California's traditional effect on U.S. jurisprudence is less revolutionary and more bellwether.

    The "one-fell-swoop" resolution may seem more expedient, and more dramatically satisfying, but the piecemeal resolution is both more likely and more reliable. Challenges in other states will leverage Walker's ruling, if upheld, to produce similar findings. By the time some appellate court does get this issue before the Supreme Court, it will no longer be a single ruling but a ruling that has precipitated from a clear nationwide trend, influenced but not dictated by California. It takes longer, but this is a more powerful motivator for a precariously balanced Supreme Court to tip in favor of gay rights.

    Honestly, if this case were appealed to the Supreme Court right now, I would not be entirely surprised to see the Court decline to hear it.
     
  9. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #9
    keep in mind, everyone, that it doesn't matter at this current time what AG-elect Harris states. She doesn't take office until January, no?

    So as AG, it is still in Jerry Brown's court. He already mentioned that he won't defend Prop. 8., and IIRC, the lawsuit specifically names Brown and Schwarzennegger in their positions as Governor and Attorney General. If they had named the state of California as the defendant in the trial, not only would this bypass the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and go straight to SCOTUS, but as the State's lawyer, the AG would then have to defend the state (assuming that the SCOTUS date would be prior to Harris taking office). But it isn't, so the AG doesn't, and since Harris isn't AG (yet), she doesn't. It's up to Brown and Arnold, both of which said they won't defend it.

    BL.
     

Share This Page