Posted on 06/26/2013 10:30:34 PM PDT by Lmo56
Prior to the creation of the Doctrine of Standing, all persons had a right to pursue a private prosecution of a public right. The doctrine began its existence in the 1920’s with either Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), or Fairchild v. Hughes, (1922) – depending on how you look at it.
It has become a convenient way for the courts to avoid making decisions on controversial cases.
Case in point, today’s [non] decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry. The majority opinion stated the following and used it in its reasoning to deny the petitioners standing:
”(2) Petitioners contend the California Supreme Court’s determination that they were authorized under California law to assert the State’s interest in the validity of Proposition 8 means that they “need no more show a personal injury, separate from the State’s indisputa¬ble interest in the validity of its law, than would California’s Attor¬ney General or did the legislative leaders held to have standing in Karcher v. May, 484 U. S. 72 (1987).” Reply Brief 6. But far from supporting petitioners’ standing, Karcher is compelling precedent against it. In that case, after the New Jersey attorney general re¬fused to defend the constitutionality of a state law, leaders of New Jersey’s Legislature were permitted to appear, in their official capaci¬ties, in the District Court and Court of Appeals to defend the law. What is significant about Karcher, however, is what happened after the Court of Appeals decision. The legislators lost their leadership positions, but nevertheless sought to appeal to this Court. The Court held that they could not do so. Although they could participate in the lawsuit in their official capacities as presiding officers of the legisla¬ture, as soon as they lost that capacity, they lost standing. Id., at 81. Petitioners here hold no office and have always participated in this litigation solely as private parties.”
In Karcher, SCOTUS recognized the fact that state court’s can certify other parties to join in a cause of action when state officials decline to appeal. However, SCOTUS ruled [in Karcher] that the other parties had been certified to join the cause of action as leadership officials of the NJ state legislature. When they lost and attempted to appeal, they were denied standing by SCOTUS – since they had lost their leadership positions in the interim.
In Perry v. Brown [precursor to today’s decision], the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified a question to the CA Supreme Court as to whether other parties could join the cause of action.
FYI: When a certified question is made by a U.S. federal court, when confronted with real cases or controversies in which the federal court's decision will turn in part on a question of state law, it will ask the highest court of the relevant state to give an authoritative answer to the state-law question, which the federal court will then apply to its resolution of the federal case.
The CA State Supreme Court replied to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the affirmative. Hollingsworth was then certified as an Official Proponent of Proposition 8 in Perry v. Brown, did have standing, and could join the cause of action. When the case was lost, Hollingsworth appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for an en banc hearing – but was refused. This set the stage for the appeal to SCOTUS.
In today’s ruling, SCOTUS rejected the CA State Supreme Court’s determination that Hollingsworth had standing. I do not think that this is something that it can legally [and morally] do. Unlike the determination in Karcher, Hollingsworth’s status [as determined by the CA State Supreme Court] HAD NOT changed. HOWEVER, invalidating the CA State Supreme Court's certification of the question was the ONLY way that SCOTUS could weasely justify its decision.
It was bad enough to have to wade through the thousands of hours of bad TV commercials, stacks of junk mail, and hoards of skanky petitioners when I knew that every once and a while a good proposition might accidentally get put into law and stay there.
But now any possible proposition I could imagine supporting that might by miracle become law, will almost certainly be challenged and be overturned for lack of official support.
What I am afraid of is this:
Lets say that a controversial [but VERY popular] Prop is passed with like 90% approval by the voters.
Lets also say that the Prop is found to be unconstitutional in a lower court.
If the state AG declines to appeal - NO ONE HAS STANDING !!!
That is the TRUE impact of today's ruling ...
Judicial tyranny. The people of California who voted for Prop 8 have effectively been disenfranchised, but who gives a f***....
SCOTUS should have left Prop 8 in place and tell the people of CA that they can repeal it by initiative at the ballot box, if they want.
So, who does have standing that could reopen the case?
Too much deep thinking.
I think all good Christians, Jews, Hindu’s and all others should remove ourselves from the system.
That is, we don’t sign a contract with the government sanctifying our union.
We bring it back to the Church/Temple/Synagogue, etc and make our commitment a private matter.
If one wants to create a contract of the union then we should have no problem with Pre-Nups and I’m completely okay with that thought and process.
We don’t need to self identify as Parent 1/Parent 2 or Husband and Husband.
They don’t own the definitions of words or natural laws.
Don’t care if two gays decide they are for each other and think of themselves as life partners. It’s their decision and commitment.
But, I am not going to sacrifice the word “Marriage” to placate their horny desires.
Hell, if the law insists on co-opting words, terms and phrases that have, historically, had the contextual meaning of man and woman, then I say we change the game on their terms.
“Oh, so you want to be married? I mean, as a gay couple?”
“No Problemo, we are ....dangit...had a thought here and can’t remember how I was going to challenge and change to argument and definitions.
It’ll pop back into my Paleolithic head later....
Where I live, we seldom have referendums (propositions). In fact, I can’t remember the last time we had a referendum on the ballot. Now I know why. They are useless if someone who is displeased with the outcome can litigate on and on until that person gets the result he/she wants. And defending these referendums in court can bankrupt the cities and states.
I do not object to courts not granting standing to just anyone, but in the case of referenda enacted law I think they are way off. Something is done via referendum usually because elected politicians don’t want to do it.
So the way the court left things today is anytime the people vote to do something the politicians don’t want to do, the politicians just need to get a stalking horse to sue them, find one court to declare it unconstitutional and then not appeal. Basically, referendums are dead as a way to force representative government to work.
No one. Prior to the 1920's, there was no issue of Standing. Anyone could bring a private action against a public right.
Now, you have to kiss the Poobahs' [SCOTUS'] asses in order to be heard.
Short of a Constitutional Amendment, nothing to be done ...
Perry was allowed standing and won in the lower court and Hollingsworth was a part of that - but Hollingsworth was NOT allowed standing to appeal. Since he/she was par of the original lower court ruling, he/she should have been allowed.
Stacking the deck is just WRONG ...
But it's a topic I would like to know more about.
Prior to the 1920's NO private action that concerned a public right was refused. SCOTUS then developed a 3-pronged test to see if a potential litigant qualified.
Problem is that the requirements are ambiguous [at best] and generally left up to the trial court on a case-by-case basis.
AND, if the trial court happens to be SCOTUS, there is NO RECOURSE [to a higher court] for an adverse standing ruling.
What is mind-boggling is that the USSC has decided that “We the People” have no standing in court, when in fact it was “We the People” who created the courts in the first place. If allowed to stand this decision is, in effect, a usurpation of power not granted to the government by the people.
This is, IMO, the first concrete act of tyranny since Woodrow Wilson’s dreams over 100 years ago.
The women of California in a class action suit would seem to have the most standing of any group or individual defending DOMA.
Begin the petitions to the state governments requiring the impeachments of the members of the U.S. Senate and SCOTUS responsible for their failures to comply with their oaths of office affirming their obligations to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Begin with meetings of fellow citizens at precinct, town hall, and county meetings.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Who needs an act of Congress to violate the first amendment when you have the SCOTUS more than willing to do it for you?
They’re not chipping away at these inconvenient roadblocks to federal power anymore: they’re blasting away at them.
True, this is legislation from the bench; sadly, that’s not a new thing. What is new is that “We the People” have been disenfranchised, told in effect “You can no longer petition the Court for redress”. Used as legal precedent, this ruling changes US citizens to subjects.
One more stolen election, and there will be only one recourse.
Bkmk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.