Judge Walker gave the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just 6 days to decide whether or not to overrule his order requiring the immediate issuing of marriage licenses to gay couples. Today the 9th Circuit, one of the most liberal in the country, stepped in to overturn that order, issuing a stay on implementing Judge Walker's ruling while it is appealed. Another smackdown of Judge Walker by an Appeals Court.
The knotty question of "standing" remains in play, however, since Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown have both failed in their duty to defend the voters who passed Prop 8--and Judge Walker kept Imperial County (which opposes same-sex marriage) from intervening in the case (while allowing San Francisco to become a party).
Here's the question for today: If anti-Prop 8 lawyer Ted Olson is so convinced that after his vaunted trial the voters of California have no case--why is he now trying to prevent higher courts from reviewing his handiwork?
The judicial bias has been extraordinary, as once again powerful elites attempt to frustrate the manifest will of the people of California. This fight will continue!
Read more from the Associated Press.
9 Comments
I wonder if the judges did this because they respect the rule of law, or because they want a chance to strike down the traditional and historic definition of marriage in nine states and two U.S. territories.
Actually, Imperial County tried to intervene after the deadline.
Second of all, I'd like to point out that the case will be appealed whether or not Prop8 lawyers have a standing because this is such an important issue. I personally expect a 6-3 ruling in favor of Perry by the Supreme Court.
Excellent news regardless.
Finally the appeals court can see through the district courts shenanigans. Traditional marriage has standing and will rule the day, this may all be over with in December. Thank you appeals court for standing up to the homosexual agenda!!
"Traditional marriage" isn't the appellant LOL. A theoretical construct can't have standing. The personal interest groups like "Protect" marriage can't demonstrate a tangible injury if same-sex marriage moves forward. Game, set, match!
CHECK MATE KEN!! Nice Ken!!!
This poll is good news. hopefully the people will come out this election and show this judge and the crony politicians not defending the law there way out the door.
California authorizes ballot initiative proponents to defend successfully passed measures in state courts, that gives them enough stake in federal court suits challenging those measures to satisfy constitutional standing requirements. Therefore, traditional marriage will stand.
Checkmate indeed...
This is good news! I would have thought for sure that California would make the same dumb mistake twice and go ahead with an activist judge's decision before this has a chance to be seen through to its end.
And Dr Paul, I should remind you that the U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get too far ahead of either public opinion or the law in the majority of states. For example, few states still had laws requiring racial segregation or outlawing interracial marriage by the time the Court struck those laws down. Most states had already struck down or repealed their own laws against same-sex intimacy when the Supreme Court finally invalidated Texas’s law in Lawrence. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most liberal members of the court, has indicated that it is counterproductive for the Court to go "too far too fast." Although she tirelessly defends abortion rights, she has still said that "[t]he court bit off more than it could chew" when it decided Roe v. Wade.
It is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule 30 state constitutional amendments defining mariage as being between one man and one woman and 31 out of 31 referendums and force it on everyone. Any lawyers bringing such a case before the Court will need favorable votes from five of the nine justices. Yet as Constitutional law scholar Andrew Koppelman put it, "When I try to count the votes in favor of same-sex marriage on the Supreme Court, I have trouble getting to one."