Prop 8 Supporters Allowed To Appeal

[jimmy olsen]

This will probably go to the Supreme Court.

Go nuts Marty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/us/backers-of-proposition-8-can-challenge-court-ruling.html

[The Minsky Moment]

Prop 8 Supporteres Allowed To Repeal 

Thread title preserved for posterity

[jimmy olsen]

Prop 8 Supporteres Allowed To Repeal 

Thread title preserved for posterity

So cruel. 

[alfred russel]

Can someone explain what this means. Why would a state constitutional issue like this one end up in federal court?

[Valmy]

Can someone explain what this means. Why would a state constitutional issue like this one end up in federal court?

Why wouldn't it?

[alfred russel]

Can someone explain what this means. Why would a state constitutional issue like this one end up in federal court?

Why wouldn't it?

Why would it is the question. I don't know the details, but if California courts decide that under the laws in place in California there is a right to same sex marriage, why would federal courts have a place to disagree?

[DGuller]

What if California courts decide that under the laws in place in California, people suspected of being illegal immigrants could be summarily executed?

[Ideologue]

Can someone explain what this means. Why would a state constitutional issue like this one end up in federal court?

Because Perry v. Schwarzenneger was decided in a United States district court, which invalidated the amendment on federal constitutional grounds.

[Valmy]

Why would it is the question. I don't know the details, but if California courts decide that under the laws in place in California there is a right to same sex marriage, why would federal courts have a place to disagree?

Because the Federal Courts can strike down a State Law, even part of a State Constitution, if it is not consistent with Federal laws.  How could a State Court rule against its own Constitution?  Where else would you challenge it?

[The Brain]

States can pick any color as long as it's black. No news there.

[PDH]

Because the Feds are dicks and always mess up other people's shit.

[alfred russel]

How could a State Court rule against its own Constitution?  Where else would you challenge it?

I thought the final arbitors of state law were state state courts. If a state law is misinterpreted by a state court, unless the ruling is somehow incompatible with federal laws then you are out of luck.

[alfred russel]

Can someone explain what this means. Why would a state constitutional issue like this one end up in federal court?

Because Perry v. Schwarzenneger was decided in a United States district court, which invalidated the amendment on federal constitutional grounds.

I don't know what P v S was, but why would the amendment be unconstitutional on federal grounds? It seems half the states have anti gay marriage amendments.

[Valmy]

I don't know what P v S was, but why would the amendment be unconstitutional on federal grounds? It seems half the states have anti gay marriage amendments.

It would have to be on some technicality in how the law is written I presume.

[Ideologue]

Can someone explain what this means. Why would a state constitutional issue like this one end up in federal court?

Because Perry v. Schwarzenneger was decided in a United States district court, which invalidated the amendment on federal constitutional grounds.

I don't know what P v S was, but why would the amendment be unconstitutional on federal grounds? It seems half the states have anti gay marriage amendments.

Perry v. Schwarzenneger was the case in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California where Prop 8 was held unconstitutional under the due process and equal protection clauses of the United States constitution.  It is what's being appealed (I believe under the name Perry v. Brown).

Quick crash course: the district court here is only bound by decisions by superior courts.  Superior courts, for the Northern District of California, number exactly two--the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.  The USSC has not ruled on this issue, nor has the Ninth Circuit.  Courts in other circuits might have, but these are basically irrelevant to the Ninth Circuit and its subordinate district court, having the power only of persuasive, not mandatory, authority--much like bringing up the decision of a foreign state in brief to the state you're arguing in, or British decisions in any U.S. state or federal court.

So, you can have wildly varying interpretations of statutory, regulatory and constitutional law between circuits, until--and sometimes unless--the USSC resolves the issue nationally.  At that point, all courts in the United States would be bound by the USSC's interpretation.

P.S. the CA Supreme Court is only involved tangentially here because the Ninth Circuit certified to them (i.e., asked them to decide) the question of standing to challenge this law before the Ninth Circuit, because standing to bring the appeal to defend a state ballot initiative depends upon California, not federal law.  At least, I think that's it.  I just skimmed the first part of the Nov. 17 opinion.