Posted on 02/28/2014 9:36:01 AM PST by neverdem
Perry v. Hollingsworth:
“Sponsors of Proposition 8 did not have standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court and the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”
I learn so much from FR, thanks for the info.
So tell me...do you think the people who brought Prop 8 before the voters didn’t have “standing” after the AG malfeasantly abdicated her SWORN duty?
Maybe.
It's a state law that allows each County capricious discretion. It's also a state law that precludes open carry, part of the basis of the ruling.
But, it's important to note this is a freeway to the USSC ass the USSC is exclusively chartered to arbitrate disputes between the States and the Feds.
Election fraud has consequences and she is one of them.
And that is what touched off this lawsuit. Local law enforcement had no consistent standards for issuing permits. Some agencies wouldn't issue any permits, some would issue a few, some would grant them to cronies, financial donors, and celebrities. This amounted to an ABUSE of discretion, and Harris knows it.
But since a permit by one agency is good throughout the State, couldn't any local agency issue a permit regardless of whether someone lives within its political boundaries? When did the people's right to carry depend upon the local police boss? I mean, the issuance of driver's license doesn't depend upon which City or County you live in, so why does the issuance of a concealed carry permit depend upon where you live?
Her mother immigrated from India. Her father was American of Jamaican ancestry.
Yes, I do.
But if the 9th Circus is going to be consistent, they should rule that Kamala Harris lacks standing here.
Oh I agree. Should have been in from the get-go. And I practiced long enough that I was rarely “stunned” but I would be STUNNED if the 9th didn’t permit this as it was State Law that was affected and not a local ordinance. And intervention is an easy thing. At a minimum, she gets an amicus brief. Being added as a party on this one is pretty meaningless anyway as it will go before the full panel which is Liberal. (the 3 Judge panel was not).
But, again, good cal on your part. She should have been in from the get go.
>>So tell me...do you think the people who brought Prop 8 before the voters didn’t have “standing” after the AG malfeasantly abdicated her SWORN duty?<<
My 2 cents:
I believe that the people who brought Prop 8 had standing when they “stepped into the shoes” of the AG after she abdicated her sworn duty. There are laws that allow for private parties to do this. Attorney general statutes.
Here, the AG is trying to insert herself AFTER she refused to participate in the underlying action. She should be judicially estopped from interjecting herself now.
Then we agree!
Vehemently!
Onward!
I think armed citizens do more for public safety than law enforcement. I mean, when was the last time the cops prevented a crime. They are always there after the fact.
Maybe if he’s elected he’ll do something to fix the carry laws in TX, which frankly stink.
Unfortunately, the government has been using our money to take away our rights for a very long time. They have no intention of stopping. On this forum, I can not say what I really think, but perhaps you can read my mind.
She must be as bright as the old wrestler Kamala..Kaleefornia is run by fruitcakes..
True but how does the state even have standing? They are not even a party to the suit. Any lawyers on her able to explain this?
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.