Not So Fast: Prop 8 is Still California Law

breitbart.com ^ | 6/26/13 | Ken Klukowski

[RockyTx]

standing needed.

how about,
some small company that self-insures,
and does not want to supply
coverage for rump rangers.

[fifedom]

it would be appealed up the state court system until SCOCA rules one way or the other (but in any event it would result in Prop 8 being struck down),

The CA Supremes have already ruled that Prop 8 is constitutional under the state constitution.

I do not know whether they can re-try the case. Probably since the US Supremes showed that they can do anything they damned well please and the sheeple will bow to them, the CA Supremes will do anything they want.

During the 2012 campaign Newt suggested calling the judges before Congress to answer questions about their rulings and the GOP establishment like George Will had a cow. But even that would probably not do much as the men in black would probably just stonewall and act like victims.

The only chance is for a constitutional amendment limiting the judges power say by allowing them to be overturned by super majorities in Congress and limiting their terms like most states do. Fat chance of that though.

Unfortunately, the most likely possibility is for the SHTF when people get tired of these arbitrary edicts by old fart lawyers.

[LachlanMinnesota]

Does a state Constitutional term override a federal district court decision based on a Federal Constituional challenge?

State’s rights vs. Federal Rights.

I think we disputed this once already.

[kingu]

The State of California doesn't have the power to decide which federal courts it will obey.

Well, yes, actually it does, and constantly does. There are quite a huge number of district court decisions that the state has ignored over the years, and likely will be another one next week. States ignore federal district courts all the time. Sometimes, a judge will get annoyed about this and will start applying contempt penalties against a state officer until someone gets around to appealing the decision that they decide not to follow.

Rarely does a state bow immediately to a district court.

Of course, in this case, the state was more than ready to bow to the district court, and accepted the decision as final, with no desire to appeal. The question is: can the people force the appeal? The supreme court effectively said no; you want to force an appeal, do it like anyone else does, harass state officials until they get off their rump and appeal it.

Now, as is typical, when Republicans were running for state offices, they ignored the issue, after all, it might offend some gay voters (who for the most part won't be voting Republican anyway...) Rather than make a call to arms to California's voters, they instead chose to ignore it and promote Meg ****man, who was of course whitless.

She took the Karl Rove approved tactic of appealing to and pandering to illegals to gain the governor's chair, while effectively all the major media ignored Jerry Brown.

Not so shockingly, she lost. Because you can't outliberal a liberal.

[campaignPete R-CT]

perhaps
SCOCA had a shot at this already
not sure SCOCA would rule on fed constituion

this could happen fast ... get before another federal judge

it may work to our advantage, to punt this because if this current SCOTUS heard the case, sounds like KENNEDY would rule constitutional amendments are uncontitutional cuz they deprive gays of their political rights by singling them out.

perhaps Roberts didn’t want this decided now and teamed with Scalia to punt it to keep Kennedy’s hands off of it!

[campaignPete R-CT]

the supporters of the law were not involved in Walker’s federal trial court

the case was
Perry v. Schwarzenegger, then Perry v. Brown

in the appeals court it became
Hollingsworth v. Perry

[AuH2ORepublican]

CA state courts could rule that the amendment violates the U.S. constitution because of any of the reasons that courts have used, or using Kennedy’s stupid new standard, or merely by saying that a federal court has declared it unconstititional. And once a CA appellate court has so ruled, Section 3.5 of the CA Constitution no longer would block administrative agencies from declaring Prop 8 unenforceable (not that I’m holding my breath on CA agencies following Section 3.5.

As for SCOTUS punting on ruling on laws that limiting marriage to one man and one woman, it certainly is doing that: it denied review today to a couple of cases dealing with state marriage laws: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/06/voting-marriage-rulings-impact-spreads/#more-166332

[campaignPete R-CT]

to punt, they need 5 to keep it away from kennedy as I cannot believe he would deny review .. unless he is foxier than that, wants to avoid a backlash.

Could it be Breyer? One of the 5 liberals see the backlash problem otherwise they would plow ahead. They are using the incremental approach.

gay marriage will be nationalized unless there is a serious shift to the right nationally and conservatives get the Ginsburg seat. Although, I cannot imagine she will stay on past ‘16. The other 4 libs are under age 80 and can survive until 2025. We are cooked.

Ginsburg might resign this summer or next.

[newzjunkey]

It has always been my argument that Arnold, Brown and Harris were too clever by simply refusing to appeal or defend the law. As a core fundamental element of representative democracy, they are elected officers of the State of California and thus duty bound to defend the laws and amendments passed by the citizens.

Secondly, and more importantly on a philosophical level, if indeed such laws or state amendments are unconstitutional is it their further duty to see to it the appeals process is followed so the determination can be made without question.

Cowards all, they punted and declared by fiat what will be and the voters be damned, and the homosexuals with whom they sided were left in limbo.

Defending these laws would've been the right thing to do, it would've been the bold thing to do. This was understood in the Civil Rights movement, it's understood by defense lawyers.

[fwdude]

I thought Walker’s court DID strike down Prop 8.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Actually, to punt, they need *6* to keep it away from Kennedy (assuming that Kennedy wants to rule right now, as you do; if Kennedy doesn’t, which I don’t think he does, then it would take 5 more). All they need is 4 votes to grant cert.

Ginsburg has given no indication that she will retire this summer. And next summer will be right before the midterm elections, so I don’t think she’ll retire then, either. I’m thinking 2015 at the earliest (and she may well stay for several years more) . Yes, she’d be risking a GOP Senate, but it’s not as if the GOP couldn’t block an ultraiberal nominee next summer anyhow.

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[BuckeyeTexan]

The section of the CA Constitution that the author references refers to statutory law. The CA Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 was an amendment to the CA Constitution. IANAL, but as I understand it, statutory law is subordinate to constitutional law. Since Prop 8 is not a statute but a constitutional amendment, the author’s premise is incorrect.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Since the state declined to defend the law, the most the plaintiffs should have accomplished is a default judgment on their specific claim. That is why Walker allowed the supporters of Prop. 8 to defend the law in his court -

That is incorrect. The case Judge Walker tried was Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The State of CA was the defendant in that case not the Prop 8 propronents. The Prop 8 proponents didn't become involved until they appealed Walker's decision to the 9th Circuit in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

[PapaNew]

The CA Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 was an amendment to the CA Constitution.

Right, and didn't the SCOCA also rule Prop 8 unconstitutional (state)? Then the proponents of Prop 8 went to the feds, right? (Unlike some here suppose, I was personally involved in the fight to get Prop 8 passed and STILL have a bumper sticker on my car saying to vote for Prop 8. My contention, however, is you don't go to the feds for a problem that is not a U.S. Constitution problem but a local/state problem, or you open Pandora's box.)

The people of CA need to hash this thing out one way or the other, and there also needs to be judges with backbone (like Scalia) who ignore the (dicta?) in the SCOTUS decision that essentially personally demeans proponents of protecting traditional marriage.

The sodomite agenda is ultimately to do away with the Bible and its values which includes traditional, Biblically defined marriage. (Marriage was created and defined by God, right? Another sad example of man futility trying to reinvent what God created.)

Thanks for helping to keep us informed.

[BuckeyeTexan]

There seems to be some confusion about how the Prop 8 case progressed to SCOTUS. Here's how it did so.

In Stauss v. Horton, the Supreme Court of CA ruled that Prop 8 was a legitimate amendment to the CA Constitution, that existing CA domestic-partnership laws remained in effect, that same-sex marriages which occurred before the passage of Prop 8 were still valid, and that Prop 8 carved out a narrow exception for equal access to the term "marriage." Strauss v. Horton was the combination of three lawsuits filed by same-sex couples and various CA cities against the State of CA and some of its officials. ProtectMarriage.com, who sponsored Prop 8, was granted permission under CA law to participate in the defense of the case alongside the State of CA.

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger later Perry v. Brown, the same-sex couples appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA, which is in the federal court system. Judge Walker held a bench trial and ruled that Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The decision was stayed pending appeal.

In Perry v. Brown, the Prop 8 proponents (defendant-intervenors) appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit asked the Supreme Court of CA to decide whether or not the Prop 8 defendant-intervenors could defend the State's interests in the State's refusal to do so. The CA Supreme Court ruled that they did have legal standing to defend it. The 9th Cicrcuit upheld the ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA (Judge Walker) that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Prop 8 proponents appealed to the SCOTUS. They ruled that the Prop 8 intervenors did not have legal standing to appeal the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of CA to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. SCOTUS remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing.

[Sir Napsalot]

However the case got to SC and the SC decision the other day, PEOPLE’S WILL had been thwarted.

[BuckeyeTexan]

See #76. The Prop 8 proponents became involved much earlier at the CA Supreme Court.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Ultimately, yes!

[BuckeyeTexan]

I answered you at #76. It was actually the same-sex couples who first went to the feds.