Replies

I think this means it is the legal duty of the state to appeal every decision that the 9th Circuit makes. And given that the 9th circuit is the most overturned, activist court in the country, that makes sense. Seems to me that if the state refuses to appeal they are supposed to be impeached for dereliction of duty. And that is what needs to happen.

But it doesn’t make sense that SCOTUS could vacate the 9th Circuit decision, if the proper CA authorities filed the suit and had standing.

It has always been my argument that Arnold, Brown and Harris were too clever by simply refusing to appeal or defend the law. As a core fundamental element of representative democracy, they are elected officers of the State of California and thus duty bound to defend the laws and amendments passed by the citizens.

Secondly, and more importantly on a philosophical level, if indeed such laws or state amendments are unconstitutional is it their further duty to see to it the appeals process is followed so the determination can be made without question.

Cowards all, they punted and declared by fiat what will be and the voters be damned, and the homosexuals with whom they sided were left in limbo.

Defending these laws would've been the right thing to do, it would've been the bold thing to do. This was understood in the Civil Rights movement, it's understood by defense lawyers.