Justices signal they may not take Prop. 8 case

A simple decision, really. Prop 8 was overturned by a federal judge who said that the majority of the voters in the state could not change their state constitution, with the ridiculous excuse that a non-existent federal law prohibited them from doing so.

And his decision was further diminished by his not recusing himself, though he had a profound conflict of interest.

As such, the clear opinion of the SCOTUS should be that if the people of California want to hold a referendum to change their constitution to permit homosexual marriage, they are free to do so. But until then, their opinion cannot be overruled by whimsical judicial decisions.

Actually, such a ruling would also vacate the 9th Circuit decision. If the SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction, then neither did the 9th Circuit.

That is only true if they dismiss the case for lack of standing. In that case, they should also vacate the District court decision. How could a party have standing to defend the law at trial, but not have standing to pursue an appeal? And if there was no one with standing to defend the law at trial, there could be no trial, and thus, no ruling overturning Prop. 8.

However, if they dismiss the case for some other reason (lack of ripeness, etc), then in that case the 9th Circuit ruling would remain in effect.

No,the state of CA appealed prop 8 to the 9th circus.

A attorney for prop 8 supporters appealed to the USSC.

Wrong. The state refused to appeal the district court ruling, which is why the 9th Circus asked the CA Supreme Court if the initiative proponents had standing to pursue the appeal on behalf of the state. The CA SC ruled unanimously that they had standing.

They don’t have to all they have to do is overrule the 9th Circus once again.

They aren’t going to extend this to all the states - but if they do let the 9th do this - then the gay marriage folks will try to ram this against every single gay marriage ban. Find a justice willing to rule against it and go from there.

Marriage may be a federal issue simply because there are international treaties that deal with it ~ however, 'gay' marriage is a matter of civil registration at the root ~ a block to fill out on a form ~ making the block bigger might be the solution.

Remember, the court, when it feels uncomfortable ~ because a particular case isn't dealing with situations that are well ripened (which has nothing to do with how much it's talked about) will almost always take the easy way out.

Dred Scott was such a case, then, when it ripened, the South attack the Union and the war was on.

The USSC is not designed to be 'smart' ~ just to sit in judgment on particular cases.

The easy way out is to simply decide the 9th, and the district, had no jurisdiction which kicks it back to California. They can decide if they are still happy with their public referenda on this and that system.

"ripened" ~ some of the justices have always seemed to hanker after doing the big social or economic decisions with cases where there've been a good number of cases at district courts and appellate courts around the country ~ otherwise they don't think the issues are 'ripe' for a national decision.

Gay marriage has a lot of discussion but actually little in the way of litigation. This California thing is a tiff between courts ~ more or less ~ and it involves California's almost unique public referenda system.

Whereas maybe gay marriage is a national issue we have 30 states that've already outlawed the practice. Justices concerned for the USSC's reputation for proper consideration of cases is on the line here ~ which, the theory goes, is how Roberts sees all the cases. He wants to make sure they don't run off half cocked against the national will or interest. Fur Shur that'll be the beginning of a campaign to depose them one way or the other (and by depose I don't mean that we just impeach them ~ more like displacing the USSC from the national dialogue).

Going through Robert's decision in ObamaKKKare vs. the people of the USA he made a simple judgment ~ go with Congress, but change the basis of the system to screw up the Democrats because they will never figure out how to use it as just a tax ~ then any later court can knock their more outrageous nonsense out of the air like wiffle balls.

He'll lean that way here ~ so will 5 or maybe 6 others.

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.