I don’t know where Pink News got this but it’s just wrong. The 9th Circuit can decide at any time to either grant or deny standing to protectmarriage.com and/or lift their stay on Walker’s order to resume marriages. They do not need the CA SC. They have asked the CA SC if protectmarriage.com would have standing in CA courts. The CA SC is NOT deciding whether they have standing in federal court.
You are wrong. The CA SC has to decide whether Protect Marriage can defend the case in the place of the state of California as the state has refused to defend it. The 9th circuit could not decide so refereed to the state supreme court on that issue. Once the supreme court has decided on who defends the case, it returns to the 9th circuit.
Michael: The 9th Circuit turfed the issue of “standing” to the California Supreme Court. This issue has arisen because the state refuses to defend Prop 8 in court. If the California Supreme Court says the Prop 8 supporters have “standing” then we go back to the 9th Circuit for the actual appeal.
The 9th Circuit and the CA SC are engaged in “foot dragging” political football to appease the “Religious” and Political Wrong” because they know as a matter of law that Judge Walker’s ruling is correct: Prop 8 is clearly a violation of the Equal Protection clause and unconstitutional, no matter what EP test is utilized.
Excuse me, Mr. Cohen, but you are wrong. The CA SC has been asked to answer the question of whether CA state law grants the proponents standing to defend the initiative. The 9th Circuit could not find precedence in CA law either way, hence the question to the CA SC. The CA SC is only answering the question of whether the proponents are granted the right by CA law to defend the initiative, not who will defend the case. The Appeals Court will still make their own determination on standing prior to the commencement of any trial. If the 9th Circuit decides there is no standing, there will be no case.
A last point I didn’t have space to add previously. As Mr. Olson states in the interview, if there is no trial at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the proponents will still have the ability to try and get the US Supreme Court to hear their arguments regarding standing.
These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous please click "Report" or email us. Terms and Conditions · Privacy Policy
They are clearly holding out in the name of religion. Evidence that religion does too much damage to society.
Enough already!
I don’t know where Pink News got this but it’s just wrong. The 9th Circuit can decide at any time to either grant or deny standing to protectmarriage.com and/or lift their stay on Walker’s order to resume marriages. They do not need the CA SC. They have asked the CA SC if protectmarriage.com would have standing in CA courts. The CA SC is NOT deciding whether they have standing in federal court.
You are wrong. The CA SC has to decide whether Protect Marriage can defend the case in the place of the state of California as the state has refused to defend it. The 9th circuit could not decide so refereed to the state supreme court on that issue. Once the supreme court has decided on who defends the case, it returns to the 9th circuit.
The 9th Circuit actually decided not to decide and ask the CA SC to take a look at the issue.
The article makes absolutely no mention of federal courts at this point, so perhaps it was edited?
Michael: The 9th Circuit turfed the issue of “standing” to the California Supreme Court. This issue has arisen because the state refuses to defend Prop 8 in court. If the California Supreme Court says the Prop 8 supporters have “standing” then we go back to the 9th Circuit for the actual appeal.
The 9th Circuit and the CA SC are engaged in “foot dragging” political football to appease the “Religious” and Political Wrong” because they know as a matter of law that Judge Walker’s ruling is correct: Prop 8 is clearly a violation of the Equal Protection clause and unconstitutional, no matter what EP test is utilized.
Anyone who wants to understand some of the nuances involved should listen to Ted Olson answering the press on the issues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uoopp5801XI&feature=player_embedded
The complete Order Certifying a Question to the Supremem Court of California can be found at:
http://www.afer.org/legal-filings/california-supreme-courts-order-granting-the-certification-request/
Excuse me, Mr. Cohen, but you are wrong. The CA SC has been asked to answer the question of whether CA state law grants the proponents standing to defend the initiative. The 9th Circuit could not find precedence in CA law either way, hence the question to the CA SC. The CA SC is only answering the question of whether the proponents are granted the right by CA law to defend the initiative, not who will defend the case. The Appeals Court will still make their own determination on standing prior to the commencement of any trial. If the 9th Circuit decides there is no standing, there will be no case.
A last point I didn’t have space to add previously. As Mr. Olson states in the interview, if there is no trial at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the proponents will still have the ability to try and get the US Supreme Court to hear their arguments regarding standing.