The EmeMedia’s rush to mischaracterize this decision should send a shudder down the spine of every thinking American. This proves that they are firmly on the side of anarchy and lies.
What a tangled web they weave when first they start to adjudicate.
What the court did here was rule that malfeasance/misfeasance/nonfeasance on the part of these rulers is a-ok: that is, essentially, what they have said here.
The question is why? And it has an easy answer: Proposition 8 was [and is] completely valid as an amendment to California's Constitution — that the governor and AG are required to see that the laws are upheld and faithfully executed
is, apparently, irrelevant — moreover, this ruling effectively strips people of the right to petition the federal government when a State is violating the 14th Amendment (after all, only the government has standing).
Seems to me if the SCOTUS refuses to decide on an appeal then the lower court ruling would stand. This is confusing.
The fact that those were gone by midday told me that the Gay Mob wasn't sure whether the other decision was good news or bad as far as they were concerned.
But that means Prop 8 is still the law in California. Section 3.5 of the California Constitution specifically commands:
An administrative agency ... has no power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.
The bottom line is Jerry Brown screwed his own citizens by refusing to defend their vote in court.
LOL- I hope this is true
Mark Levin nailed this one. They handed it back to be picked apart by the lower courts, based on their central finding that “you have to be a bigot in order to oppose gay marriage”.
Levin said this was “written by very clever law clerks” to destroy Prop 8. while keeping SCOTUS fingerprints off of that.
They’ll ignore it. Really. That is what will happen.
If m reading this right, the path forward for Prop 8 supporters is to sue Moonbeam to enforce the law, as proscribed in the CA constitution
Do I have that right?
Someone please ‘splain this in NON LAWYER speak.
Here is a taste of the treats awaiting American taxpayers.
> “Since the official sponsors lacked standing to defend Prop 8, the Supreme Court refused to rule on the merits, and also vacated (i.e., threw out) the the Ninth Circuit’s decision.”
> “But that means Prop 8 is still the law in California.”
I am sorry to say but this is totally misleading.
The decision by the homosexual federal judge Vaughn Walker, who overturned Prop 8 on 14th Amendment grounds, still stands.
The only recourse for Californians now is for the California state AG to file suit to overturn this homosexual judge’s decision. That’s not going to happen any time soon in California.
The broader strategy is to pass a US Constitutional Marriage Amendment.
But first the public must be reminded or taught about the downside of the homosexual lifestyle just as so many pro-life people have undertaken to expose abortion mills. Behind the curtain of the homosexual lifestyle are horrors for eyes to see and ears to hear, and these horrors are prevalent among this group.
I’m an old college graduate with a major in History and a minor in Political Science, and I am hopelessly confused by this Court.
Remember the good old days.....when words had meanings?
The answer was in the affirmative and the 9th Circuit accepted it.
Any egg-head lawyers out there? The following comes from the New York State Court of Appeals Civil Procedure Handbook:
"Decision By Court of Appeals. Section 500.27(g) provides that “[w]hen a determination is rendered by the Court with respect to the questions certified, it shall be sent by the clerk of the Court to the certifying court.” It is the practice of the Clerk’s Office to send copies of the Court of Appeals’ decision directly to the parties. The Clerk’s Office then will return to the certifying court that court’s record. See Procedures for Certification in the Second Court of Appeals, supra, for discussion of procedure upon receipt of answers. Although a party may seek reconsideration of the Court of Appeals’ answer to certified questions as with other decisions of that Court, a party has no right to seek review of the Court of Appeals’ decision by the United States Supreme Court."
In this case, the New York Court of Appeals will make a decision on a certified question and send back to the certifying court [eg: Federal Court of Appeals]. If the decision is accepted by the certifying court, it cannot be reviewed by the USSC.
So, HOW then, could the USSC [yesterday] REVERSE the 9th Circuit's acceptance of the CA State Supreme Court's decision on standing in Perry v. Hollingsworth?
Rut roh...