Prop 8 opponents: Calif. civilians can’t defend case against state

[William769]

Today the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether or not under state law civilian supporters can take the place of the state, specifically in the Federal case challenging anti-marriage equality Proposition 8.

In August of last year, Federal Court Judge Vaughn Walker found unconstitutional Proposition 8, the law barring marriage between two adults of the same sex created after a November 2008 ballot measure, ruling in favor of plaintiffs represented by the organization American Foundation for Equal Rights. The attorneys leading the charge against the law are former President Bush solicitor general Ted Olson, and former Al Gore lawyer David Boies who in 2000 faced off in Bush v. Gore. While plaintiffs are seeking to restore marriage equality to California, proponents of the measure are attempting to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling.

The 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals put the case, Perry v. Brown (formerly Perry v. Schwarzenegger) on hold in January after both Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris refused to defend the law in court citing their own constitutional objections. When concerned citizen groups hoping to keep the law on the books attempted to fill in for the state to defend the law, the 9th Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to rule on whether or not the concerned groups can in fact defend the law in place of the state. The legal principle at question is “standing,” which Law.com defines as “the right to file a lawsuit or file a petition under the circumstances.”

Though the 9th Circuit will make the ultimate decision, the appeals certified a question to the State Supreme Court of California on whether state law allows proponents of the ballot initiative to have the right to represent the state in the appeal in place of the state officials themselves. In February the California Supreme Court agreed to address the 9th Circuit’s question which led to today’s hearing.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2011/09/06/prop-8-opponents-calif-civilians-cant-defend-case-against-state/

I have watched the hearing so far & the justices seems to be playing the devil's advocate on both sides. I am confused now about this issue than I have ever been before.

Please before making any comments, read the full article.

[RKP5637]

1. K&R n/t

[Mz Pip]

2. The California Supreme Court

is pretty conservative. I think we just got our first liberal, Gordon Liu, appointed by Brown a few weeks ago. This will be interesting to say the least.

[joeybee12]

3. KNR

I wonder, especially since this is basically the same California Court that did mental aerobics to try and find a way to consder this heinous ballot initiative constitutional.

[alc]

4. executives should be required to defend laws

People around here are unhappy with some of Obama's defense choices. But, what happens if a republican wins next year and has to defend health care reform to the supreme court? Should the administration need to defend the law? I think the health reform law is terrible, but it's now up to congress to change it, not up to the next president to decide if it's valid and worth defending.

All sorts of laws could be "overturned" after they are passed by congress and signed by the president. Just save the law suits until you have a "favorable" president and let them fail to defend it (it's a little more complex than that, but an option.)

[William769]

5. Your argument is not the same that is being argued today.

This has nothing to do with the legislative branch. It has to do with ballot initiative.

[Starry Messenger]

6. k&r