Appeals court stays marriage ruling (Ca Prop 8)

Politico ^ | August 16, 2010 | Ben SMith

[Beaten Valve]

The Ninth Circuit has stayed Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in the high-profile Constitutional challenge to California's same-sex marriage ban.

The case is scheduled to be heard in early December. So hold the wedding bells.

There is some good news, though, for the same-sex plaintiffs: 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.

"In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing," says the order.

[Persevero]

“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.

[wiggen]

Don’t tell me,tell the court that seems bent on stripping our rights as citizens from challenging anything.

[Tanniker Smith]

The libs on digg and reddit will be going nuts. I gotta go check it out.

[South40]

A case of temporary insanity.

[Psycho_Bunny]

But I thought “Judge” Walker said there was no reason to stay his ruling because there weren’t grounds for appeal..........

[onyx]

LOL.

[Psycho_Bunny]

"the appelants -- who don't include the Governor or Attorney General -- lack standing"

If they voted "Yes", they have standing.

[old republic]

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?

[longtermmemmory]

when does the governor take office?

when is the new AG in place?

[Recovering_Democrat]

Thank God!
Let's hope SCOTUS does the right thing!

[Recovering_Democrat]

Thank God!
Let's hope SCOTUS does the right thing!

[longtermmemmory]

we are about to find out.

[Loud Mime]

When perversion is no longer perversion, what is now perverted? And....when will THAT behavior be deemed acceptable?

[mellow velo]

Congratulations to the 9th Circuit on a reasonable decision.

Broken clock ... blind squirrel ... yadda, yadda

[william clark]

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?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

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?

[rintense]

The 9th Circus??? No way.

[ncalburt]

Is Ben trying to get refund for his dress ?
Is A SAD DAY for this Journolist listed Obama propagandist.

[melancholy]

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.

[ncalburt]

Maybe Sheppy had a Carmel wedding planned .
Its must be tough to return an altered wedding gown.