<div>This takes the theatre out of it... I was hoping for a same sex marriage legal showdown in the US Supreme Court, risky but full of drama. So perhaps you can answer this question: Can another Proposition, like Proposition 8, be placed before the voters of California, to nullify Judge Walker's decision, or does his decision negate this possibility? I suspect another Proposition 8 effort in California is not legally sound...</div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/14/10, <b class="gmail_sendername">Andreas Schou</b> <<a href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com">ophite@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Ted --<br><br>My suspicion is that it's unlikely to end up in the Supreme Court.<br>Article III allows only actual cases or controversies to come before<br>
the court. California, the defendant, has declined to appeal the<br>ruling. Absent some sort of real, defined harm, here's no precedent<br>which would allow the proponent of a ballot measure to step into the<br>state's shoes and continue on with an appeal. There's actually a good<br>
deal of contrary precedent.<br><br>I seriously doubt NOM's ability to find a representative plaintiff<br>who's been "harmed," in any real sense, by gay marriage. Consequently,<br>I suspect the decision will have to wait for the next gay marriage ban<br>
to fall, and for the state to intentionally carry it to the Supreme<br>Court.<br><br>-- ACS<br><br>On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Ted Moffett <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> This is likely to end up in the SCOTUS, and Justice Kennedy likely to be the<br>> deciding vote. But if Justice Ginsberg, the oldest SCOTUS member, steps<br>> down, her replacement could be a factor. Consider thiese quotes from the<br>
> article below:<br>><br>> "Kennedy's name appears nowhere in a trial judge's 138-page opinion issued<br>> Wednesday striking down California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriages.<br>> Nonetheless, Kennedy's previous decisions were cited 16 times in U.S.<br>
> District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Proposition 8 violates the<br>> Constitution.<br>><br>> Walker's citations to Kennedy foreshadow the highly anticipated showdown<br>> that's to come when the Supreme Court finally considers gay marriage."<br>
><br>> And:<br>><br>> "Kennedy's opinion "dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has<br>> permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual<br>> unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned," Justice<br>
> Antonin Scalia wrote in a 2003 dissent."<br>><br>> <a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/justice-kennedys-the-one-to-watch-on-gay-847477.html">http://www.statesman.com/news/nation/justice-kennedys-the-one-to-watch-on-gay-847477.html</a><br>
><br>> From website above:<br>><br>> Justice Kennedy's the one to watch on gay marriage<br>><br>> California's recently overturned ban on same-sex marriages likely to go to a<br>> sharply divided Supreme Court.<br>
><br>> By Michael Doyle<br>><br>> MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS<br>><br>> Published: 8:08 p.m. Saturday, Aug. 7, 2010<br>><br>> WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy appears likely to<br>> eventually tackle California's gay marriage ban and his role could be<br>
> crucial.<br>><br>> Kennedy's name appears nowhere in a trial judge's 138-page opinion issued<br>> Wednesday striking down California's Proposition 8 ban on gay marriages.<br>> Nonetheless, Kennedy's previous decisions were cited 16 times in U.S.<br>
> District Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling that Proposition 8 violates the<br>> Constitution.<br>><br>> Walker's citations to Kennedy foreshadow the highly anticipated showdown<br>> that's to come when the Supreme Court finally considers gay marriage.<br>
><br>> Four conservative justices on the Supreme Court are widely considered to be<br>> unlikely to support a decision recognizing a constitutional right of gays to<br>> marry.<br>><br>> Four others, including newly sworn-in Justice Elena Kagan, seem more likely<br>
> to agree with Walker that the Constitution doesn't allow states to treat gay<br>> couples differently from heterosexual ones, analysts said.<br>><br>> The deciding vote, most analysts agree, likely will belong to Kennedy.<br>
><br>> "It seems the issue will clearly be close, and on close cases (Kennedy)<br>> tends to be in the middle," said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law<br>> professor.<br>><br>> Kennedy wrote gay-friendly opinions in a 1996 case striking down a Colorado<br>
> ballot measure and a 2003 case striking down a Texas law that banned gay<br>> sodomy.<br>><br>> Kennedy hasn't tipped his hand on gay marriage, stressing that the 2003<br>> Texas decision "does not involve whether the government must give formal<br>
> recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."<br>><br>> However, some hope — and some fear — that Kennedy's sympathies are already<br>> clear.<br>><br>> Kennedy's opinion "dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has<br>
> permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual<br>> unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned," Justice<br>> Antonin Scalia wrote in a 2003 dissent.<br>><br>
> The Supreme Court could look different by the time the gay marriage case<br>> arrives, though. Some intervening steps, not all of them predictable, also<br>> may shape the case's outcome.<br>><br>> A randomly selected three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S.<br>
> Circuit Court of Appeals will review Walker's decision first. Eleven of the<br>> 9th Circuit judges then could review the appellate panel's work, in turn, in<br>> what's called an en banc decision.<br>
><br>> The appellate reasoning and the resulting posture of the case could nudge<br>> justices one way or another, though the Supreme Court never hesitates to<br>> show who's boss. During the past two years, the Supreme Court reversed 9th<br>
> Circuit decisions in 22 out of 31 cases.<br>><br>> The 9th Circuit's briefing schedule released Thursday calls for all briefs<br>> to be submitted by late December. Oral arguments will come later.<br>><br>
> Because the Supreme Court typically finishes setting its docket in<br>> mid-January, this means there won't be time to hear any appeal before the<br>> term ends next June.<br>><br>> "We're talking the 2011 term," Tobias said.<br>
><br>> By 2011, there might be new Supreme Court justices whose views will shape<br>> the outcome.<br>><br>> The court's oldest member now is 77-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg,<br>> who has battled cancer several times. Although she hasn't hinted at<br>
> retiring, her departure during President Barack Obama's term could affect<br>> the gay marriage case.<br>><br>> For instance: If Democrats lose some Senate seats this November, as appears<br>> likely, their weaker grip on the Senate could make Obama more likely to pick<br>
> a moderate replacement for the Supreme Court rather than an avowed liberal.<br>><br>> Still, for the foreseeable future, Kennedy is likely to be the go-to<br>> justice.<br>><br>> During the court's 2009-10 term, Kennedy was in the majority 82 percent of<br>
> the time, according to a tally by the nonpartisan SCOTUSblog.com. This was<br>> more than any other justice. Kennedy has a tradition of being part of the<br>> court's winning 5-4 majority more than any other justice, though he wasn't<br>
> in the previous term.<br>><br>> Additional material from the Los Angeles Times.<br>><br>> -------------------------------------------<br>><br>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br>><br>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Tom Hansen <<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>>> Courtesy of CNN at:<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/12/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T2">http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/12/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T2</a><br>
>><br>>><br>>><br>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> Judge gives the green light for same-sex marriage in California<br>
>><br>>><br>>><br>>> Los Angeles, California (CNN) -- A federal judge ruled on Thursday to<br>>> allow same-sex couples to marry in California, starting on August 18,<br>>> handing another big victory to supporters of gay rights in a case that both<br>
>> sides say will likely end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> Last week, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco struck<br>>> down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, ruling that voter-approved<br>
>> Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution. Walker had issued a temporary<br>>> stay on his decision, which on Thursday he said he would lift.<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> The high-profile case is being watched closely by supporters and opponents<br>
>> of same-sex marriage, as many say it will make its way to the U.S. Supreme<br>>> Court. If it does, the case could result in a landmark decision on whether<br>>> people in the United States are allowed to marry people of the same sex.<br>
>><br>>><br>>><br>>> Same-sex marriage is legal in five U.S. states and in the District of<br>>> Columbia, while civil unions are permitted in New Jersey. The five states<br>>> are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa and New Hampshire.<br>
>><br>>><br>>><br>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> Seeya round town, Moscow.<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>
>> Tom Hansen<br>>><br>>> Moscow, Idaho<br>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> "If I wanted to overhear every tedious scrap of brain static rattling<br>>> around in your head, I'd read your blog."<br>
>><br>>><br>>><br>>> - Bill Maher<br>>><br>>><br>><br></blockquote></div><br>