Stay of Prop 8 Jilts Equality

[Land Shark]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle


"Barring intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, the three-judge appellate panel's ruling will allow this two-tiered system to endure until at least December. There will be no rush to the altar, no rush to remedy an entrenched wrong. History is on hold."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/16/EDTI1EUSBQ.DTL#ixzz0wpaQGwNA


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/08/16/EDTI1EUSBQ.DTL

---

Rather than comment on the Page A9 editorial above (which I commend to your attention) I thought I'd add more value by first posting the full text of 9th Circuit order, which is below, then asking a question (after).

The full text of the order reads, (except comments in brackets like this { } which are my comment):

Appellants' motion for a stay of the district court's order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) {this regards continuances or time extensions} shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California. The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010.

In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
<7441574>
EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and SIDNEY R. THOMAS

QUESTION: while the order bodes well by directing the appellants to address whether or not they have STANDING, we should ask ourselves the question of whether the rule that will be crafted won't in fact backfire when it comes to standing for environmental groups and others, where the argument is nearly the same, i.e., e.g., "HOW WILL YOU BE PERSONALLY DAMAGED by the slaughter of the bison in Yellowstone?"

I don't have the answer just yet, but just want to point out that one can win the battle and lose the war, because it is a principle applicable to all future cases regarding standing that is being created, not just a gay marriage precedent.

[dsc]

1. the enviromental ship has already sailed

It was an enviromental case that led to the rule in the first place. It will be interesting if they do make an exception for laws passed by referenda in this regard.

[Land Shark]

3. Quite true, but it can sail further and further off course...

After all, Scalia wrote before he became a Justice that it may well be that nobody exists with standing to raise certain constitutional claims, and he's quite OK with that.

STanding and other "prudential" doctrines are how the benefits of Burger and Warren era cases get or got taken away without actually reversing those decisions in all cases.

AGain, I'm just giving a heads up, on the general basis that the federal courts and especially the Supreme Court are looking for ways to tighten up standing for both ideological reasons and to reduce "court congestion" so a favorable ruling on standing here in a published case could mean greater trouble for activists trying to STOP government action in the future. But yeah, that troublesome ship has set sail already for environmental and other cases, it's just that it can sail further.

[boppers]

2. Bison want to get married, but legally can't?

I did not know that.

:evilgrin:

[xchrom]

4. The 9th circuit have stood with referendum re: equality

In the past haven't they?

[HillWilliam]

5. Here's another link for commentary on the case

LeonardLink.

[midnight]

6. K&R Equality has a long road ahead.