Prop. 8: Round III

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by bradl, Dec 6, 2010.

  1. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #1
    Just in case you're not in the know, today is the day that the trial for California's Proposition 8 (ban on same-sex marriage) is slated to be heard at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

    It should be pretty interesting as both the Governor and Attorney General of CA are not defending the ban. It also is being question on if anyone else has legal standing in the case.

    Forum with Michael Krasny is dedicating an entire hour of his talk/call-in show to it (happening right now), and KQED will be pre-emting his second hour of his show for live coverage of the trial. They stream online, so you should be able to pick it up either from KQED's site, or via iTunes.

    BL.
     
  2. coolmacguy, Dec 6, 2010
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2010

    coolmacguy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    #2
    It is also being televised on CSPAN at 1pm est.
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  4. coolmacguy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    #4
    The decision will not be handed down for several weeks/months.
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Ugh- great.
     
  6. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #6
    I don't know about that. A summary judgment that the remaining parties do not have standing to appeal could theoretically happen very quickly.

    I highly doubt that will happen, mind you.
     
  7. likemyorbs macrumors 68000

    likemyorbs

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #7
    Prop 8 is toast. It's gonna be fun watching it's backers cry themselves to sleep after they realize this is the beginning of the end for them, and that they're on the wrong side of the culture war and history.
     
  8. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #8
    If Cooper's so-called "arguments" are any indication, you're damned right. This is just sad. If he waves his hands any harder I fear they will fall off.
     
  9. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #9
    Either way, the issue won't be settled by this case, since both pro- and anti- gay marriage groups still exist in large numbers. The political and legal battles will continue for some time to come.

    However, if Prop 8 supporters are defeated in court, it could signal that the tide is finally turning against gay marriage opponents, at least in California.
     
  10. coolmacguy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    #10
    The guy just contradicted his own argument.

    He said at first that California could not institute racial segregation by initiative because that would be unconstitutional, but then said that the people of California needed no other reason to enact prop8 other than they disagreed with the CA Supreme Court and the current constitution.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    I really hope so.
     
  12. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #12
    Brief update. The case moved forward a little today. In summary:

    Imperial County is out. As argued in the hearing, even if the clerk himself, the only elected official in the office, had joined the appeal, which he did not, a county clerk has no authority to set standards for marriage, but is limited to a functional role, carrying out the standards set by the state.

    The standing of the private sponsors is still up in the air. Although the Supreme Court has expressed "grave doubts" that sponsors can stand in place of state officials in appealing a constitutionality ruling, they have not ruled thus. The 9th Circuit panel has expressed a sense that the initiative process would be "ill-served" if supporters could not appeal in place of state officials, but has asked the California Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue.
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    The rules seem to be fairly clear. This will drag on for a while though, as no one wants to put their butt on the line to do what's right.
     
  14. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #14
    I know it's hard, but patience. The wheels are turning; this is how they turn.

    It has occurred to me that yesterday's events might indicate a court eager to give a substantive ruling rather than taking a procedural escape hatch. The Supreme Court has expressed "grave doubts," so they ask the court more likely to back their own state's initiative mechanism, even going so far as to prompt them a bit. For whatever purpose this is a court that wants to address this issue on the merits, and needs someone to give them the green light. There is a risk there, but the supporters' arguments were as incoherent on appeal as they were during the challenge. It could be a very encouraging sign.
     
  15. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #15
    Yes, it could be. We'll just have to wait and see.
     
  16. codymac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #16
    I know it's not what you mean, but you can hear the arguments as early as tomorrow:

    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/
     
  17. bradl thread starter macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #17
    This portion of the trial is only procedural. This, a separate suit, was filed by someone in Imperial County because they believed they had standing in the case. If this gets ruled against that party, it just means that there are no other opponents that can jump into the case. This could still go to SCOTUS, but someone would have to be on the other side. Brown (as AG) said he wouldn't do it. Harris (as AG) said the same.

    And the way that the original suit was filed, they sued individual people in their offices, not the State. And since all major defendants (Arnold, Brown), said they wouldn't, it's up to the private people listed to only have standing.

    BL.
     
  18. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #18
    I wasn't sure quite which iteration of these Prop 8 threads we were last using to keep info up-to-date, but seeing as how this is the most recent thread on it, I thought I'd add some news.

    Yesterday the CA Supreme Court held oral arguments about whether or not the Prop 8 sponsors had standing as a matter of right under California law.

    Since the last time the CA Supreme Court dealt with any Prop 8 litigation, we've had 2 justices retire, which could affect the vote breakdown if it's a close case. The new Chief Justice, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, is probably personally supportive of LGBT rights (she is quite young and has hinted that she views it as a distraction) and at an event held at my law school (she is an alumna) she heavily emphasized that she did not like inefficiencies in the court system, especially with appellate review issues which would seemingly mean she wouldn't want more parties qualifying for standing before appellate courts. However, in general she is more conservative and tends to follow precedent a great deal. Based on her questions during oral arguments, I'd be willing to say that she's a toss-up.

    The other new justice, Goodwin Liu, is a fairly consistent liberal jurist who has published articles as an academic for LGBT equality. He replaced a fairly liberal justice as well, so he doesn't affect the net outcome very much.

    Chances are the Court will allow the sponsors to have standing under California law. What this means is that the CA Supreme Court will hand the case back to the 9th Circuit, at which point it will make a formal ruling on whether or not Prop 8's sponsors can file an appeal (and no matter what the CA Supreme Court says, the 9th Circuit will deny standing).

    The CA Supreme Court has 90 days to file their opinion, and even though chances are that it's already been written, they will wait until day 90 to publish it because at least 5 of them desire to see Prop 8 overturned at the ballot box in November 2012.
     
  19. Simgar988, Sep 8, 2011
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2011

    Simgar988 macrumors 65816

    Simgar988

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2009
    Location:
    UYBAATC
    #19
    I thought this thread was going to about pot:( so many props!:)

    Hope this wins!
     
  20. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #20
    I don't. I'd like to see that the Constitution means something.
     
  21. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #21
    Having the voters overturn Prop 8 would be the best outcome. A court ruling is a less powerful statement than a popular vote.
     
  22. leekohler, Sep 9, 2011
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2011

    leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    That would be nice, but civil rights should never be put to a vote, This is a travesty of our political system. This should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. Voting on basic rights should be illegal. They are guaranteed by our constitution, not something voters decide to approve or not.
     
  23. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #23
    I agree. It's getting a little annoying watching judges try to spread the responsibility as thin as possible to avoid going on record making the ruling they know they'd have to make, just because it would be unpopular with a hateful and vocal minority.

    Passing it off to the voters is not right because civil rights are not appropriately subject to popular vote. But the courts are trying to pass the buck to the voters in the hope of dodging blame, not because it's correct.
     
  24. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #24
    I agree with both of you - the courts should defend the constitution so that the people needn't constantly reaffirm rights we've already attempted to make explicit in the constitution. Otherwise, everything would be up for a vote all the time, leading to total paralysis. This should be the way Prop 8 is defeated.

    However, as long as people disagree on the meaning of the constitution (and that will be forever), it will be necessary from time to time to resort to the ballot box.
     
  25. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #25
    Not really. A popular vote is easily undone by another popular vote. A court case on the other hand, particular one at the Supreme Court level isn't so easy to undo. Look at the abortion issue for instance. If that had merely been a popular vote, the legality of abortions could have swung like a pendulum over the years at the whims of voters. Do we really want human rights subject to those same whims? I'm going to say no.

    The Constitution states that we are all equal. Freedom and equality are supposedly the main principles of the United States. Time to put that into practice once and for all rather then just play lip service to the idea.
     

Share This Page