State Supreme Court votes to decide Proposition 8 issue

SacBee: Capitol Alert ^ | 2/16/11 | Jack Chang

[SmithL]

The state Supreme Court voted unanimously today to decide the legal standing issue in the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage case now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The federal appeals court had asked the state's high court to provide guidance on whether ProtectMarriage.com, the proponents of the 2008 ballot measure, could defend it before the 9th Circuit.

[Steely Tom]

They will decide this issue in precisely the way in which the elites of California want it settled. This will undoubtedly be the way that is the most damaging to ordinary Middle American families, but hey, who gives a excrement about them.

[SmithL]

Since neither Schwarzenegger nor Brown were willing to stand up for the voters of California, The California Supreme Court will now decide whether anyone has legal standing to defend Prop 8 before the Federal 9th Circus.

[reagandemocrat]

The SAME California Supreme Court that started the whole enchilada to begin with.

“On May 15, 2008, the Supreme Court struck down California’s existing statutes limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples in a 4-3 ruling. The judicial ruling overturned the one-man, one-woman marriage law which the California Legislature had passed in 1977 and Proposition 22.”

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Want to bet on how this court is going to rule.

[Iron Munro]

The federal appeals court had asked the state's high court to provide guidance on whether ProtectMarriage.com, the proponents of the 2008 ballot measure, could defend it before the 9th Circuit.

The fix is in.

[GVnana]

Not so fast, everyone. The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8. That’s what led to the federal court case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27marriage.html

[Morpheus2009]

That was before Judge Walker made his decision and statements, though.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks SmithL.

The state Supreme Court voted unanimously today to decide the legal standing issue in the Proposition 8 same-sex marriage case now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal appeals court had asked the state's high court to provide guidance on whether ProtectMarriage.com, the proponents of the 2008 ballot measure, could defend it before the 9th Circuit.

[DBeers]

Exactly. The Fed bounced it back to the state for one reason alone --to let the state decide standing in the state matter rather have the fed arbitrarily impose.

Of course, if the state denies standing to the citizens then I suspect we will see two closely related issues of injustice will be seeking legal remedy. First, the denial of the right for citizens/society to represent their own interests; and second, the ability of the people to best value and decide by legislative and legislatively created legal means what moral standards are in their own best interests to value and promote.

[EternalVigilance]

A judicial coup d’etat against the sovereign people.

And against God Himself.

[IrishCatholic]

They not only didn’t stand up for the voters, Brown asked to switch sides and Schwarzenegger said he hoped the state would lose!

Both should have been thrown out of office, but the entire state government structure is broken.

[newzjunkey]

Since neither Schwarzenegger nor Brown were willing to stand up for the voters of California, The California Supreme Court will now decide whether anyone has legal standing to defend Prop 8 before the Federal 9th Circus.

It's scandalous that neither the Governor or the Attorney General will defend the directly expressed will of the voters. Maybe it should be required by law... time for a new initiative?

[fwdude]

I agree that the Governor and AG should defend the law, but how can you force an unwilling public servant to do this effectively? It's like asking Obama's Justice Department to defend DOMA.

[longtermmemmory]

That may be where the 9th is going with this. If there is no standing per the Calif SC then it is an new appelate issue. If there is standing then the merits can be decided.

Of course guidance means GUIDANCE and is not necessarily binding.

this could be a repetition but evading review issue.

also voters who pass laws the state gov opposes would never be able to have standing.