Not So Fast: Prop 8 is Still California Law

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

[ColdOne]

News reports that California's Prop 8 has been struck down as unconstitutional are completely false.

Proposition 8 is the amendment to the California Constitution that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. A federal trial judge--Vaughn Walker--held that Prop 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court held that only the losing defendants in that case--the governor and attorney general of California--had standing to appeal that decision. When they refused to do so, Prop 8's official sponsors filed the appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and pursued it all the way to the Supreme Court.

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. Section 3.5 of the California Constitution specifically commands:

[RBStealth]

From what I understand this good news through Breitbart together with a $1 buck, will still only get us a cup of coffee.

[CA Conservative]

So the court that made the Prop 8 ruling was a Federal Court?

Yes, but the fact that SCOTUS vacated the ruling of the 9th Circuit means that the ruling of the District Court applies only to the parties to the case, and only in that District. Since California has several Federal Court districts, that would seem to imply that the ruling only impacts a portion of the state.

There is also the question of whether there should be any finding of unconstitutionality at all. 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 - he wanted to have a trial so he could declare the whole law unconstitutional, not just grant a default judgment to the plaintiffs. But if the supporters of the law did not have standing to defend the law at the 9th Circuit, they also did not have standing at the trial court, and the whole decision by Walker should be vacated and replaced with a default judgment.

[eddiespaghetti]

I know I don’t think California can ignore the District Court’s order.

LEGALLY, if I’m not mistaken, the District Court’s order is only binding within that District (which I think is the Northern District of California).

[cookcounty]

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?

[Tau Food]

Yes, but the fact that SCOTUS vacated the ruling of the 9th Circuit means that the ruling of the District Court applies only to the parties to the case, and only in that District. Since California has several Federal Court districts, that would seem to imply that the ruling only impacts a portion of the state.

According to the Supreme Court's opinion:

"After a 12-day bench trial, the District Court declared Proposition 8 uncon- stitutional, permanently enjoining the California officials named as defendants from enforcing the law, and 'directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision' shall not enforce it. Perry v. Schwarzenegger"

The judgment is binding on all of the officials named as defendants, from the Governor on down, in all parts of the state.

Only an Act of God will prevent homosexual marriage in California.

Trust God.

[Iron Eagle]

It’s called the Supremacy clause. it trumps all this. If a Federal Court has held the provision to be unconstitutional under Federal Law — the state law cannot preclude that finding.

Federal Courts determine the application of Constitutional law. It may take a state appellate court to undo that process if the challenge started in the State and was based on state law.

This is game — set — match in California.

The Liberty law fellow may be a sharp cat — but he obviously didn’t take Federal Courts while at George Mason.

[pollywog]

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/livenow?id=7367462

been watching this with renewed interest since yesterday's ruling.

"I really believe it will take an Act of God to stop homosexual marriage in California."

[pollywog]

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/livenow?id=7367462

[rcrngroup]

Someone please ‘splain this in NON LAWYER speak.

The answer is definitely maybe & maybe not.

Eloquent lawyers have declared Prop 8 still stands and other Eloquent lawyers have declared Prop 8 is invalid. So we stand firmly behind the opinions of the learned Eloquent lawyers.

[butterdezillion]

I think this means it is the legal duty of the state to appeal every decision that the 9th Circuit makes. And given that the 9th circuit is the most overturned, activist court in the country, that makes sense. Seems to me that if the state refuses to appeal they are supposed to be impeached for dereliction of duty. And that is what needs to happen.

But it doesn’t make sense that SCOTUS could vacate the 9th Circuit decision, if the proper CA authorities filed the suit and had standing.

[napscoordinator]

It is absurd to see that they had to pay such high taxes just for being single. Perhaps changing the tax law would have stopped all this stuff. That woman who sued the government had to pay an additional 3 million dollars in estate taxes. Change the dang tax code and we won’t have the distruction of American life.

[napscoordinator]

The broader strategy is to pass a US Constitutional Marriage Amendment.

That will NEVER happen. It is next to impossible. I think ensuring that no other states pass gay marriage is the better way to go.

[Lmo56]

In Perry v. Brown [precursor to yesterday's Perry v. Hollingsworth decision], the 9th Circuit sent a CERTIFIED QUESTION to the CA State Supreme Court, asking whether Holllingsworth had standing.

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?

[Hostage]

> “That will NEVER happen. It is next to impossible. I think ensuring that no other states pass gay marriage is the better way to go.”

BS.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3036375/posts?page=39#39

[DoughtyOne]

Rut roh...

[AuH2ORepublican]

Maybe a county clerk would have standing, but this will probably come to a head another way. Some county clerk will refuse to perform a same-sex marriage, claiming that the Constitution of California prohibits him so to perform, and the issue likely will go before a state court. Given that a state court can’t rule that the constitutional amendment violates the state constitution, it would either have to (i) declare that same-sex marriage is illegal in CA, (ii) rule that Prop 8 violates the U.S. Constitution for some reason (whether for the reasons given by the gay district court judge (that any limitation of marriage to one man and one woman violates rational basis), the reasons espoused by Reinhardt in his vacated opinion (once a state permits same-sex marriage, it can never be taken away), or for some other reason (such as ruling it unconstitutional in this particular case because the referendum didn’t meet Kennedy’s new test from Windsor)), or (iii) declare that Prop 8 is no longer part of the California Constitution because it was struck down by the gay district court judge who wanted to marry his partner. Irrespective of what the state trial court decides, 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), and then the county clerk would apply for cert from SCOTUS. And only then will SCOTUS decide whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits citizens of a state to amend their state constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Unless, of course, by that time Californians have amendmed the state constitution again, this time to permit same-sex marriage, in which case the whole exercise would have become moot.

[1010RD]

It is a curious ruling. Essentially saying that A. Elections matter and B. Elected officials can ignore laws they don’t like, despite having the electorate pass them via legal referendum. I really don’t understand the thinking.

It reminds me of the fact that the police have no individual duty to defend you or protect you. The clearly don’t have the right not to act to prevent crime occurring openly and notoriously before their eyes. We just don’t give the executive that much leeway, do we?

[1010RD]

The point is to groom and form public opinion with the wanted result seeming inevitable, thereby demoralizing any opposition or alternative thought or action.

[fifedom]

Yes, but the fact that SCOTUS vacated the ruling of the 9th Circuit means that the ruling of the District Court applies only to the parties to the case, and only in that District. Since California has several Federal Court districts, that would seem to imply that the ruling only impacts a portion of the state

There is also the question of whether there should be any finding of unconstitutionality at all. 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 - he wanted to have a trial so he could declare the whole law unconstitutional, not just grant a default judgment to the plaintiffs. But if the supporters of the law did not have standing to defend the law at the 9th Circuit, they also did not have standing at the trial court, and the whole decision by Walker should be vacated and replaced with a default judgment.

This is also my understanding. Walker's ruling only applies to the specific homo's suing and maybe to the places where they live.

Still, I have heard that Moonbeam is going to order county clerks to issue marriage licenses. The Prop 8 group is still around and doing great work so they will probably sue Moonbeam and the clerks(You can still contribute to them. I contribute regularly)

Most likely the clerks in the homosexual areas like Frisco and LA will issue licenses at least until the case is heard so we will probably have a bunch of licenses issued like when the d*mned CA supremes allowed this before Prop 8 passed.

From the polls, redefining 'marriage' will probably pass easily in CA nowadays but it would be good to be able to spoil the celebrations of the media.

[OneWingedShark]

It reminds me of the fact that the police have no individual duty to defend you or protect you. The clearly don’t have the right not to act to prevent crime occurring openly and notoriously before their eyes. We just don’t give the executive that much leeway, do we?

I think it's more along the insidious lines of that ruling that Jurors indeed have the right of nullification, they just don't have to be told about that right — which has led to the exclusion of prospective jurors because they knew the law (and their authority/right) to the point that, right now, it's almost disappeared.

Indeed that, when combined with the presented/implied constraint that jurors must find someone guilty even if the law under which they are charged is invalid, is a powerful tool for judicial tyranny. (As is the idea that the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it does.)