Skip to comments.9th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Boy Scouts over Lesbian and Agnostic Couples
Posted on 12/28/2012 4:20:38 PM PST by NKP_Vet
In a surprising decision last week that drew little press attention, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, handed the Boy Scouts a victory over a lesbian couple and an agnostic couple. The Ninth Circuit is considered the most liberal appellate court in the land.
(Excerpt) Read more at thomasmore.org ...
That’s AMAZING! That court has a “transformational agenda” just like O’s!
Thanks for the good news!
This is one of those little victories that convince conservatives that they still have a snowballs chance in hell.
The “Ninth Circus Court”, as my nephew the lawyer calls them.....
Unless I’m reading it wrong, it wasn’t much of a victory. The suit was tossed only because the plaintiff’s lacked standing to sue. If they had standing, the outcome might have been very different.
I’m suspicious of why the ninth circus voted the way it did.
I doubt it was because they agreed with the outcome but because the plaintiff’s had such a pathetically weak case that finding for them would create never ending legal issues for the entire court system so they really had no choice but to not open that can of worms.
Is there bacon in the treetops?
Of course it drew little press attention.
If the decision had been reversed, we would hearing for years to come about what a great victory it was.
A broken clock...
Depends on if John Bob has been hunting feral pigs with explosive arrows again. That's what I hear anyway.
I can't believe the 9th did this. I hope the Supremes don't overturn it out of reflex.
The 9th Circus is a liberal cesspool as a whole, but there are maybe a couple of decent judges on it. Perhaps their names were drawn to be in the 3 judge panel on this case?
To the headline: hell has frozen over!
Okay - I just completed reading the entire decision. It comes down to the following. The plaintiffs don’t have standing because they never actually tried to use the facilities! That is it in a nutshell. Another way of putting it is that being offended doesn’t give you standing to sue.
So the court directed summary judgement to the BSA. Now if the plaintiffs actually try to use the facility and can’t - then they could sue.
one ping only, vasily, if you please...
There is only one thing you can be certain of- if there was a way they could have hung the Boy Scouts out to dry and forced them to accept the homo agenda, they would have.
There must have been too weak a case, and it would have been overturned by the supremes- so they bailed on it.
...but I only pressed the Post button once and still had multiple posts.
To dismiss a case because the suing party lacks legal standing is one of the weakest wins in the court system.
However, the SCOTUS case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) was a slam dunk for the BSA, and made it clear both that they could not be forced to admit those whose behavior was against their principals; and that they had to be offered any private accommodation by government that any other private organization is offered.
I can’t believe the 9th Circus voted in favor of the Boy Scouts! Miracles never cease.
Just mailed my annual tax deductible check to the Boy Scouts for 2012. I also give money to the Alliance for School choice that helps sends poor kids to private schools.
The kids are our future.
Yay. So happy to see this.
Wow!. Hadn’t heard that. You mean the 9th circus made a rational decision for once?
It’s probably more a tactical victory than a moral one.
The complainants did not have standing to sue, because they were not involved in scouting in the first place — therefore this decision was made on a small legal technicality. That is what conservatives usually do not understand.
If constitutional traditionalists want to win, we have to fight strategically and use the law in a dry intellectual way, avoiding drama, to achieve incremental victories in court.
This doesn’t sit well with lawyers aspiring to be James Stewart or Clarence Darrow; but the small ways a suit is worded are often more decisive than the legal or moral principles involved.