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
QuoteProp 8 Supporteres Allowed To Repeal
Thread title preserved for posterity
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2011, 06:05:55 PM
QuoteProp 8 Supporteres Allowed To Repeal
Thread title preserved for posterity
So cruel. :cry:
Can someone explain what this means. Why would a state constitutional issue like this one end up in federal court?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 09:34:15 AM
Can someone explain what this means. Why would a state constitutional issue like this one end up in federal court?
Why wouldn't it?
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2011, 09:38:20 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 09:34:15 AM
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?
What if California courts decide that under the laws in place in California, people suspected of being illegal immigrants could be summarily executed?
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 09:34:15 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 09:42:58 AM
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?
States can pick any color as long as it's black. No news there.
Because the Feds are dicks and always mess up other people's shit.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2011, 09:47:01 AM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 09:46:08 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 09:34:15 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 09:50:41 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 09:50:41 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 09:46:08 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 09:34:15 AM
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.
You would think with all the rumors flying around that Perry would be more quiet on this issue.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 10:01:21 AM
You would think with all the rumors flying around that Perry would be more quiet on this issue.
:lol:
There are three levels of the federal court system...
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 10:11:50 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 18, 2011, 10:01:21 AM
You would think with all the rumors flying around that Perry would be more quiet on this issue.
:lol:
There are three levels of the federal court system...
:lol:
Thanks Ide.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2011, 06:07:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 17, 2011, 06:05:55 PM
QuoteProp 8 Supporteres Allowed To Repeal
Thread title preserved for posterity
So cruel. :cry:
Still not fixed. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 09:58:39 AM
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.
Standing in a federal court is a federal issue. However, in this particular posture, there are 2 issues of state law that inform federal standing:
1) Who has the right to assert
California's interest in defending the (US) constitutionality of California's constitution and laws?
2) Do proponents of an initiative have a "particularized interest" in defending its constitutionality so as to give them standing in their own right?
Ultimately, the CA Supreme Court decides that the proponents of an initiative may assert California's interest in defending the initiative's constitutionality. Which makes sense, since the whole point of an initiative is to pass something the elected government isn't interested in passing; if the government could then just refuse to defend the initiative, that initiative right would be relatively pointless.
Quote from: ulmont on November 18, 2011, 01:39:51 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 09:58:39 AM
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.
Standing in a federal court is a federal issue. However, in this particular posture, there are 2 issues of state law that inform federal standing:
1) Who has the right to assert California's interest in defending the (US) constitutionality of California's constitution and laws?
2) Do proponents of an initiative have a "particularized interest" in defending its constitutionality so as to give them standing in their own right?
Ultimately, the CA Supreme Court decides that the proponents of an initiative may assert California's interest in defending the initiative's constitutionality. Which makes sense, since the whole point of an initiative is to pass something the elected government isn't interested in passing; if the government could then just refuse to defend the initiative, that initiative right would be relatively pointless.
Cool. :)
Quote from: fahdiz on November 18, 2011, 01:41:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 01:20:23 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 18, 2011, 12:45:46 PM
Thanks Ide.
My education wasn't wasted. :cry:
Don't be so hasty! :P
You're just jealous because you didn't get your quasi-worthless degree. :blurgh:
(Of course, if I get that gubmint job, it's IBR and ten years and then it's HA HA EAT IT TAXPAYER).
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2011, 01:46:51 PM
You're just jealous because you didn't get your quasi-worthless degree. :blurgh:
Oh, I definitely received a quasi-worthless degree.
Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2011, 09:45:46 AM
What if California courts decide that under the laws in place in California, people suspected of being illegal immigrants could be summarily executed?
Good idea!
Cand I be Gurbernator?
Quote from: Siege on November 20, 2011, 07:06:51 AM
Cand I be Gurbernator?
That's really more of a naval position.
Quote from: DGuller on November 18, 2011, 09:45:46 AM
What if California courts decide that under the laws in place in California, people suspected of being illegal immigrants could be summarily executed?
Not sure if this was a serious question and no lawyer jumped in, but the constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, so that wouldn't fly. The USSC has more or less limited capital punishment to murder with special circumstances.