[safeasthebanks]

"The problem the supporters of prop 8 had was that their own elected government officials ( governor, sec of state etc.) refused to defend the law that it’s citizens voted for...and the SCOTUS decided that the individual citizens did not have standing in federal court to argue for a bill that their own state government did not support"

This is not correct. The USSC ruled the Ninth Circuit (the appeal of who's ruling is how this got to the USSC), was judged to have had no jurisdiction to render a decision in this case, as it's a State issue. Hence, it goes back to the State Court decision, which struck down the amendment. Perfectly sound decision, and why Roberts AND SCALIA ruled as they did.

[snarkytart]

So the people don’t decide their state court will. haha okay some state’s right decision. gmab

[morphing libertarian]

Not perfectly sound. The sponsors of the initiative have standing; to say otherwise is ludicrous (is that a legal opinion?).

This happened in California before. The state officials refuse to support the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

We passed prop 187 to restrict benefits for illegal aliens.

Gay Davis refused to defend it in court. That is the biggest contribution to the mess we have been in in Cal even before OB, the hero of benghazi came along.

We have the right to honest, legal elections. If that right was violated because an ineligible or fraudulant candidate is elected, citizens have standing, by virtue of their rights, to bring a case/

“Standing” being so tightly interpreted, merely makes it easier to go against the results of elections. I voted in those elections and I claim standing.

[fifedom]

Hence, it goes back to the State Court decision, which struck down the amendment. Perfectly sound decision, and why Roberts AND SCALIA ruled as they did.

Uh no. It was a federal court. The homo judge Walker was a federal judge (now retired).

[BuckeyeTexan]

That’s incorrect.

Essentially, the SCOTUS decision says that the case was properly heard before the U.S. District Court of N. CA. (Judge Walker) because the State of CA was defending Prop 8 at that time. The case was not properly heard before the 9th Circuit because the voters who brought the initiative have no legal standing to defend Prop 8 in the federal court system. They can only do so in CA under CA law.