Skip to comments.
Appeals court stays marriage ruling (Ca Prop 8)
Politico ^
| August 16, 2010
| Ben SMith
Posted on 08/16/2010 4:01:36 PM PDT by Beaten Valve
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-142 next last
To: GreenLanternCorps
“California law specifically gives the proponents of an initiative standing to defend the law in court. This is to prevent a Governor and/or Attorney General from effectively spiking an initiative by not defending it properly in court.”
Great info, thanks.
41
posted on
08/16/2010 4:36:52 PM PDT
by
Persevero
(Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
To: GreenLanternCorps
Don’t tell me,tell the court that seems bent on stripping our rights as citizens from challenging anything.
42
posted on
08/16/2010 4:37:46 PM PDT
by
wiggen
(The teacher card. When the racism card just won't work.)
To: Beaten Valve
The libs on digg and reddit will be going nuts. I gotta go check it out.
43
posted on
08/16/2010 4:42:19 PM PDT
by
Tanniker Smith
(If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog?Five?No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg.)
To: onyx
A case of temporary insanity.
44
posted on
08/16/2010 4:43:34 PM PDT
by
South40
("Islam has a long tradition of tolerance." ~Hussein Obama, June 4, 2009, Cairo, Egypt)
To: Beaten Valve
But I thought “Judge” Walker said there was no reason to stay his ruling because there weren’t grounds for appeal..........
45
posted on
08/16/2010 4:49:52 PM PDT
by
Psycho_Bunny
(Hail To The Fail-In-Chief)
To: South40
46
posted on
08/16/2010 4:53:10 PM PDT
by
onyx
(Sarah/Michele 2012)
To: Beaten Valve
"the appelants -- who don't include the Governor or Attorney General -- lack standing"
If they voted "Yes", they have standing.
47
posted on
08/16/2010 4:53:31 PM PDT
by
Psycho_Bunny
(Hail To The Fail-In-Chief)
To: GreenLanternCorps
California law specifically gives the proponents of an initiative standing to defend the law in court. This is to prevent a Governor and/or Attorney General from effectively spiking an initiative by not defending it properly in court. Can a state law grant that grants standing to sue in state courts also be used to give standing in Federal Courts? In other words, if a state recognizes someone as having standing to sue under state law, that doesn't mean the Federal Courts have to recognize that party's standing in Federal law, do they?
To: Retired Greyhound
when does the governor take office?
when is the new AG in place?
49
posted on
08/16/2010 5:00:55 PM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: Beaten Valve
Thank God!
Let's hope SCOTUS does the right thing!
To: Beaten Valve
Thank God!
Let's hope SCOTUS does the right thing!
To: old republic
we are about to find out.
52
posted on
08/16/2010 5:09:49 PM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: LearsFool
When perversion is no longer perversion, what is now perverted? And....when will THAT behavior be deemed acceptable?
53
posted on
08/16/2010 5:11:46 PM PDT
by
Loud Mime
(Argue from the Constitution: Initialpoints.net1)
To: Persevero
Congratulations to the 9th Circuit on a reasonable decision.Broken clock ... blind squirrel ... yadda, yadda
To: Beaten Valve
The court warned in its order that it's considering dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the appelants -- who don't include the Governor or Attorney General -- lack standing
Seems to me the 9th just neutered themselves. Citing lack of standing might be a way they could justify refusing to hear the appeal, but once they agree to hear it, haven't they automatically conferred standing upon the appellants?
55
posted on
08/16/2010 5:17:54 PM PDT
by
william clark
(Ecclesiastes 10:2)
To: Beaten Valve
Why did the Ninth Circuit rule on this so quickly yet is taking their sweet little time with Arizona’s immigration law that was put on hold?
To: Beaten Valve
The 9th Circus??? No way.
57
posted on
08/16/2010 5:24:12 PM PDT
by
rintense
To: Beaten Valve
Is Ben trying to get refund for his dress ?
Is A SAD DAY for this Journolist listed Obama propagandist.
58
posted on
08/16/2010 5:24:31 PM PDT
by
ncalburt
(e)
To: Johnstone
7 million CA voters may not have “standing”? Wow. I think those freaking judges considered the people squatting in front of their liberalism and arrogance.
Considering the voters have no standing is contempt towards the voters' squatting in apathy.
The lousy judges will recognize the citizens' standing only when all judges are elected, NOT appointed.
59
posted on
08/16/2010 5:26:31 PM PDT
by
melancholy
(It ain't Camelot, it's Scam-a-lot!)
To: Bushbacker1
Maybe Sheppy had a Carmel wedding planned .
Its must be tough to return an altered wedding gown.
60
posted on
08/16/2010 5:26:40 PM PDT
by
ncalburt
(e)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-142 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson