Supremes: People who wrote Calif Prop 8 don't have standing to defend it

[Little-Acorn]

California Proposition 8 was a ballot initiative voted on by a majority of Californians, to amend their state constitution to define a "marriage" as only a union between man and woman.

Gay advocates sued, and as the case worked its way through the courts, an election happened. Gov. Ahnold was out, and Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown was in (again). Gov. Moonbeam announced that, even though the Prop 8 lawsuit was against the Calif government, the government would no longer try to defend it. He basically repudiated a duly registered and passed initiative by the people. The legality of this refusal has not been established.

The people who had written Prop 8 and gotten it through all the legal hurdles and through the election where it was approved by the Calif electorate, stepped in and said they would defend it, and the Federal District Court agreed. The District Court held the trial, and said that Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. It went on the the 9th Circus Court, who checked with the Calif Supreme Court whether the ballot-writers had standing to defend Prop 8 (the CA Supemes said they did), and then the 9th Circus also said Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.

It went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and today that court announced that the people who wrote Prop 8 did NOT have standing to defend it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-144

Some say that means the 9th Circus court's ruling (that Prop 8 is unconstitutional) stands, and same-sex couples can now get "married" (again).

I'm wondering if, since the people defending it do not have standing to do so... does that mean that the 9th Circus trial is also invalidated? And the Federal District court's trial before it?

But what it clearly means, is that no decision was made on the merits, by the Supreme Court. They just punted it back. So now it has to start all over again, with a new lawsuit, this time brought by people who DO have standing.

Umm... who exactly would that be? If the people who wrote it don't have standing, and the Calif government refuses to defend its own duly passed laws... who does that leave?

BTW, CAN the Calif govt refuse to defend its own laws in court? Or does an election mean, we can essentially throw out any laws we don't like, that were passed before this latest election? I don't think it's supposed to work that way. But then, this IS California.... :cheers2:

[aboutime]

Let them do whatever they want. As long as THE REST OF US....WE THE PEOPLE...don't have to pay for them. And they stop trying to force all of their strange behavior down our throats. I don't care if they marry their PET GOAT. As long as I don't have to pay for it, as directed by ANY LAW.

[Little-Acorn]

I'm still trying to puzzle my way through this "standing" business.

Suppose the people of California put together a ballot proposition saying you can't walk on the grass in front of the State Government building in Sacramento. People used to litter there, there were bare spots being worn in the grass from all the feet, etc. So now this proposition is voted on in an election, passes, and becomes California law, though not through any legislative action by the Calif Assembly, Senate, and Gov.

But the Assembly members, Senate members, state Attorney, and Gov, who all work in that building and used to enjoy having their lunch on the grass, picnic-style on sunny days, don't like the law very much. Eventually someone brings suit challenging the law, on whatever grounds. The Gov announces he will not defend the law, and orders the state Attorney not to do anything about the suit.

The people who wrote the proposition say, Fine, we'll defend it ourselves. It goes thru the Calif courts, thru the Calif Supreme Court (who says the people who wrote it DO have standing), then to a Federal District Court who says the Grass Proposition is unconstitutional, again for whatever reason. A Federal Appeals Court affirms, and it eventually goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they say that the people who wrote it do NOT have standing.

So, what happens now? Does the District Court and Appeals Court decision, invalidating the Grass Proposition, hold sway?

The People of California legally passed a proposition and made it California Law. Is it automatically doomed to be shot down by the first trivial lawsuit anyone wants to file, if the Calif Gov decides he doesn't like it?

[Thunderknuckles]

The fights is over in California. Someone may try to devise some odd legal challenge but in the end, the 9th Circuit's decision will stand. It's over.


As for the CA government refusing to enforce it's own laws, that crap smacks of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Imagine if the President said outright that he will not enforce any laws passed by Congress that he does not personally agree with. The whole system breaks down.
Yet, that is exactly what happened in California. More specifically, Gavin Newsom who as mayor of San Francisco, ordered the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in flagrant violation of California law at the time (2004).
Forget where you stand on a political issue, when your elected leaders start doing that and you don't take a stand, you're tacitly supporting the demise of our republic.

[aboutime]

The fights is over in California. Someone may try to devise some odd legal challenge but in the end, the 9th Circuit's decision will stand. It's over.


As for the CA government refusing to enforce it's own laws, that crap smacks of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Imagine if the President said outright that he will not enforce any laws passed by Congress that he does not personally agree with. The whole system breaks down.
Yet, that is exactly what happened in California. More specifically, Gavin Newsom who as mayor of San Francisco, ordered the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in flagrant violation of California law at the time (2004).
Forget where you stand on a political issue, when your elected leaders start doing that and you don't take a stand, you're tacitly supporting the demise of our republic.


Thunderknuckles. Obama already HAS said he will not enforce many laws. The Immigration and Border security bills have all been ignored by Obama. So. Nothing new with your question.

All of this is nothing more than the continued DETERIORIZATION of America. One step at a time. Look at how politicians are standing behind all of this stuff...just for votes in the next election.
Hypocrisy, Lies, and Partisanship RULE.

[Robert A Whit]

California Proposition 8 was a ballot initiative voted on by a majority of Californians, to amend their state constitution to define a "marriage" as only a union between man and woman.

Gay advocates sued, and as the case worked its way through the courts, an election happened. Gov. Ahnold was out, and Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown was in (again). Gov. Moonbeam announced that, even though the Prop 8 lawsuit was against the Calif government, the government would no longer try to defend it. He basically repudiated a duly registered and passed initiative by the people. The legality of this refusal has not been established.

The people who had written Prop 8 and gotten it through all the legal hurdles and through the election where it was approved by the Calif electorate, stepped in and said they would defend it, and the Federal District Court agreed. The District Court held the trial, and said that Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution. It went on the the 9th Circus Court, who checked with the Calif Supreme Court whether the ballot-writers had standing to defend Prop 8 (the CA Supemes said they did), and then the 9th Circus also said Prop 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.

It went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and today that court announced that the people who wrote Prop 8 did NOT have standing to defend it.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-144

Some say that means the 9th Circus court's ruling (that Prop 8 is unconstitutional) stands, and same-sex couples can now get "married" (again).

I'm wondering if, since the people defending it do not have standing to do so... does that mean that the 9th Circus trial is also invalidated? And the Federal District court's trial before it?

But what it clearly means, is that no decision was made on the merits, by the Supreme Court. They just punted it back. So now it has to start all over again, with a new lawsuit, this time brought by people who DO have standing.

Umm... who exactly would that be? If the people who wrote it don't have standing, and the Calif government refuses to defend its own duly passed laws... who does that leave?

BTW, CAN the Calif govt refuse to defend its own laws in court? Or does an election mean, we can essentially throw out any laws we don't like, that were passed before this latest election? I don't think it's supposed to work that way. But then, this IS California.... :cheers2:

Ahhhhhnaaaaaaaaaaaaald and Moonbeam elected to take no action to defend the people's law.

I voted for 8 and now am told it is none of my business by the highest circus in this country.

[Little-Acorn]

in the end, the 9th Circuit's decision will stand. It's over.


That wasn't decided at all. The Supremes simply said that the people defending the law, didn't have standing to do so. They said nothing at all, about which side had greater merit.

If/when another suit is brought, with people who have standing on both sides, the game will go on.

[fj1200]

That wasn't decided at all.

Which means the 9th Circuit ruling stands, no?

[aboutime]

The Ninth Circus Court is a Judicial Joke across this entire nation.

5187