DEVELOPING: Schwarzenegger and Brown file papers with California Supreme Court responding to PJI’s appeal
September 8, 2010 at 1:06 pm Eden James 106 comments
(Cross-posted at LGBTPOV)
By Karen Ocamb
Last week the 3rd District Court of Appeal rejected a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Justice Institute trying to force Attorney General Jerry Brown (who is running for governor in the 2010 elections) and the Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to file an appeal in the federal challenge to Proposition 8. According to an email from the right wing Capitol Resources Institute, the California Supreme Court wants to know why the state isn’t appealing, too. Here’s the emai:
“Late yesterday the California Supreme Court responded to a request by the Pacific Justice Institute to compel the Attorney General and the Governor to file the appeal in the federal challenge to Proposition 8.
In August, a federal court in San Francisco overturned the voter approved measure that stated that marriage is between one man and one woman. While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the appeal of the lower court’s decision, they have made clear that there is a question whether the parties before them have standing to pursue the appeal. The Attorney General as well as the Governor have failed to file the appeal in this matter based on their personal opposition to Proposition 8. The proponents of the ballot measure took on the State’s job of defending the measure in court.
The California Supreme Court has ordered the Attorney General and the Governor to respond by 9 am this morning explaining why they have not filed this appeal. Then the Pacific Justice Institute has just three hours to respond by noon today.
“We are pleased that the judicial branch is at least considering forcing the executive branch to do its job,” said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. “Millions of Californians voted for Proposition 8. The issue should be heard all the way up to the US Supreme Court. No elected official ought to be able to substitute his judgment for the decision of our courts.”
Several sources are checking this out and I will update this as the information comes in. Theoretically, the California Supreme Court can order Attorney General Jerry Brown and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to appeal Judge Walker’s ruling.
UPDATE from AP’s Lisa Leff:
The letters Schwarzenegger and Brown filed this morning are brief and reiterate their positions that they have discretion to choose which rulings to appeal. They also say that PJI miscalculated the deadline for filing an appeal with 9th Circuit–that it was Sept. 13, not Sept. 11.
UPDATE (2:20 Pacific) In AP’s report, Leff wrote:
“Proposition 8’s sponsors have appealed. But doubts have been raised about whether its members have the authority to do so because as ordinary citizens they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws.”
UPDATE (12:45 Pacific):
Chris Geidner at MetroWeekly writes that Deputy Attorney General Tamar Pachter, responding for AG Brown, said in her letter that the Pacific Justice Institute’s effort on behalf of Pastor Joshua Beckley “is too little, too late.”
Pachter concluded:
It is within the Attorney General’s discretion to determine that it is or that it is not appropriate to pursue an appeal. In Perry, given the Attorney General’s position at trial, there are no grounds for an appeal, and the filing of an appeal under such circumstance would be frivolous. The petitioner’s contention to the contrary is manifestly without merit.”
Geidner also notes that Wednesday’s filing was already set by a court order detailing a briefing schedule of the expedited appeal. He says the Capitol Resources Institute’s email is “misleading.”
Brown’s response can be found here: Letter Brief.pdf
Veteran LGBT journalist Lisa Keen posts at her Keen News Service that Schwarzenegger won’t appeal either. Keen notes:
“The definitive statement means the ability of Proposition 8 proponents to appeal will depend entirely on the legal standing of the Yes on 8 coalition……In a five-page letter September 8, Counsel for the Governor Andrew Stroud told the court, “Although Beckley may disagree with the Governor’s decision not to file a notice of appeal [in the Proposition 8 case in federal court], it was the Governor’s decision to make.”
UPDATE BY EDEN: Jeff in the comments just posted Gov. Schwarzenegger’s response from Metro Weekly:
http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/09/08/Gov%20Letter%20Brief.pdf
Entry filed under: Background, Trial analysis.
106 Comments Add your own
Leave a reply to Felyx Cancel reply
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Prop 8 Trial Tracker 
1.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 1:08 pm
‘scribing
2.
Kathleen | September 8, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Me, too, late to the party
3.
Bill | September 8, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Full brief filed by our NEXT GOVERNOR Brown is here:
Click to access Letter%20Brief.pdf
And I LOVE it!
4.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 8, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Scribing. Will check in later to read.
5.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 8, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Click the button, dingbat! Then hit the submit button.
6.
Steven | September 8, 2010 at 1:16 pm
very interesting.. i think Sept 10th is the deadline.. if 11th is deadline, but i think they can accept appeals on weekends…
7.
Jeff | September 8, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Browns letter says the 13th is the deadline (the original article on this had the 3rd… thinking someone along the way read it wrong so it got reported that Brown was arguing it was the 3rd instead of the 13th?).
Either way, heres to hoping the Court sees there is no reason for mandamus.
8.
Eden James | September 8, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Yes, that was an error. It has been corrected to the 13th.
9.
Jeff | September 8, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Actually the 3rd is from the Governors briefing (makes the argument the filling is based on the appeal filed the 4th of August) http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/09/08/Gov%20Letter%20Brief.pdf
10.
Bill | September 8, 2010 at 2:02 pm
What reason would they possibly have for forcing the state to defend a law which those we have elected and entrusted to uphold the Constitution have stated repeatedly that they find Unconstitutional on its face?
There really isn’t a reason to force them to do so. A reason would have to be manufactured specifically for this case, which would really show bias on the Supreme Court.
11.
nightshayde | September 8, 2010 at 2:40 pm
[whine] Because the people voted and activist judges shouldn’t be able to undermine the will of the people. [/whine]
Yes – I know that’s complete and utter crap. I’m pretty sure that’s what they’re going with, though — especially in the court of public opinion.
I still think we need more funding for classes teaching civics.
12.
elliom | September 8, 2010 at 1:21 pm
IANAL, but here’s how I understand it from the footnotes of the letter:
If judgment was entered on 8/4, then deadline was 9/3. Past and dead.
If judgment was entered on 8/12, then deadline would be 9/11, which is a Saturday, so deadline is next working day, or 9/13. Next Monday, so time is critical.
13.
Bob | September 8, 2010 at 3:19 pm
The argument in Schwarzenegger’s brief was that Judge Walker’s judgment was entered on 8/4, so 9/3 would be the deadline to appeal his decision. As you say, past and dead.
The injunction against allowing marriages to be performed pending appeal proceedings was entered on 8/12, so the deadline to appeal the injunction would be 9/11 (a Saturday, and therefore extended to Monday 9/13).
14.
Anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 3:26 pm
Think we could convince Schwarzenegger and Brown to appeal the 9th Circuit’s stay injunction (which would go to SCOTUS, wouldn’t it?), but not appeal Walker’s decision?
Wouldn’t THAT put the proponents’ undies in a knot?
15.
elliom | September 8, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Just want to note, in case anyone missed it, the AG letter also makes reference to the 9/3 deadline, if somewhat obliquly.
Footnote 1, pg 2.: “Assuming that the 30-day period….began on the date of the entry of the injunction (rather than August 4, 2010…”
I take this to mean that even the AG has doubts about the 9/13 deadline.
16.
Anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 3:33 pm
I did catch that, and I would think you are right, although the court could decide to stretch that point if they wanted to, I think?
Of course, they could rule that Schwarzenegger is right on that point, making this whole appeal moot, and be done with it without having to even rule on the merits of PJI’s supposed case, which is also ok by me.
17.
elliom | September 8, 2010 at 3:38 pm
I agree, I think the court will be as cautious as possible, and thus go with the later deadline. It is, however, an interesting point of contention.
I must say, this whole process has been VERY enlightening on US legal procedure.
18.
Anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Oh MY yes! The legal experts we have around here, and that wonderful live Q&A session have been amazing!
MANY thanks to everyone whose varying ideas and opinions have also enlightened us. This has been a fabulous experience indeed!!
19.
Adam G. | September 8, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Subscribing, and this worries me.
20.
Inland Empire | September 8, 2010 at 1:23 pm
The deadline to file an appeal is Sept 13th!
21.
AndrewPDX | September 8, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Ok, I’m sure this is posted above, below, or someplace nearby… I’m posting this just so I can get it correct in my brain — and for smarter heads to fix me if I’m wrong.
Judge Walker’s ruling that Prop8 is Unconstitutional was on August 4th.
The 9CC’s stay pending that appeal was on August 12th.
Thus, to appeal Walker’s decision, the deadline was September 3rd.
To appeal the 9CC’s stay, the appeal needs to be by September 11th — which is a Saturday, so that goes to the 13th instead.
Did I get that right?
Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Andrew
22.
Inland Empire | September 8, 2010 at 4:32 pm
AndrewPDX ,
Bases on the Govenor’s letter brief you are correct. AG Brown’s letter implied it was Sept 13. I believe it is Sept 3rd, but I am no lawyer.
23.
Kathleen | September 8, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Curiously, the Gov’s answer suggests the deadline was September 3, assuming 30 days from Walker’s ruling of Aug 4.
However, 30 days starts ticking from the date the judgment is entered on Aug 12. As AG Brown’s answer says, 30 days would be Sept 11, which is a Saturday, so the deadline is the following Monday, Sept 13.
24.
Anne B. | September 8, 2010 at 1:27 pm
gotta wonder – let’s say they DID force the state to appeal. Can’t imagine that would be a very well-done appeal…
25.
Mouse | September 8, 2010 at 2:49 pm
I almost wish they do. On the one hand, an appeal would be horrible because it would mean the original decision would continue to be stayed for the appeal process. On the other hand, they wouldn’t be retrying the case – they would be reviewing the evidence as it was presented, and so we would be guaranteed to win again at a higher level which could have broader reach in the decision.
26.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 2:51 pm
I hope they don’t. There is no such thing as a guaranteed win. I hope the appeal does not go forward and Judge Walker’s ruling stands.
27.
Anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 3:27 pm
I’m with Ann on this.
28.
Mouse | September 8, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I know that the reality is that a win is not guaranteed. However, with the case Olson and Boies presented, as compared to the absolute nothing that the other side presented, I do feel that we are as close as one can humanly come to such a thing.
29.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 3:57 pm
A great deal still depends on what legal analysis is applied to the evidence presented at trial. If it is found that a rational basis analysis is the appropriate level of scrutiny, it doesn’t take a lot to survive that scrutiny. We have seen this work in other jurisdictions. While the 9th circuit tends to be somewhat liberal, much depends on the particular panel of judges drawn.
yes, Olsen & Boies and the whole anti-8 team did a kick-ass job. It is all too easy, though, to get caught up in irrational exuberance and forget the risks inherent in any appeal.
30.
Jason The Opinionated | September 8, 2010 at 11:29 pm
My understanding is that appellate courts can’t normally dispute a trial court’s findings of fact, but they can certainly dispute the legal conclusions that the judge drew from those facts and they can declare facts irrelevant. The legal question that most concerns me here is whether the court thinks the right at stake is that of Marriage or Same-Sex Marriage. I don’t think federal appellate courts have weighed in on that, unless you count Baker–though it baffles me how any court could endorse the notion that you can construe any arbitrary, narrow slice of a right to be a separate right. In that case, there has never been a fundamental right for persons named Goldstein, Klein, or Abrams to marry persons named Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, or Kennedy. And the right to vote is certainly not the right to illiterate voting.
31.
Anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 3:37 pm
I think they would only insist that the State be the name on the appeal, the Prop 8 proponents would continue to do all the work.
And I think, if the State WERE forced into that position (as unlikely as it seems) they would allow it to work that way, as if they were to enter a poorly done defense on purpose, it might sway the court in ways that would not be helpful. So my guess is that if PJI wins (they won’t) then Schwarzenegger and Brown’s names go on the appeal, giving it standing, but their lawyers do exactly what they did during the trial (which was sit around and get paid boatloads of money for not doing anything at all) and the Prop 8 people do everything else.
I don’t see this happening at this point.
32.
elliom | September 8, 2010 at 3:41 pm
How about:
If Gov and AG forced to appeal, as the named defendants, they request the court no longer recognize the DIs, as they are now unnecessary, and THEN concede the case (or put on a sham defense).
Possible? Plausable? Wouldn’t that be a kick in the rubber parts?
33.
Sagesse | September 8, 2010 at 1:27 pm
Subscribing. Sincerely hope the CA Supreme Court takes about five minutes to smack them down, once the deadline for responses has passed, as the appeals court did.
34.
Sagesse | September 8, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Damn. They actually did it :). (Skipping happily).
35.
Linda | September 8, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Don’t you find it refreshing to read documents that use logic? A welcome relief after all the junk we’ve endured from NOM, Engle, et al.
36.
Bennett | September 8, 2010 at 3:42 pm
I was just thinking the same. It eases the hurt in my head.
37.
DazedWheels | September 8, 2010 at 1:33 pm
Subscribing.
Hi everyone.
38.
Don in Texas | September 8, 2010 at 1:33 pm
The Attorney General’s brief is convincing.
39.
Inland Empire | September 8, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Where can I read Arnie and JPI’s letter brief?
40.
Steven | September 8, 2010 at 1:34 pm
i think the 9th Circuit of Appeals can accept an appeal on weekend? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
41.
Jeff Tabaco | September 8, 2010 at 1:42 pm
From the attorney general’s brief, on how discretion not to appeal successful challenges is completely ordinary and regularly exercised by state and federal attorneys alike: “Attorneys general are not potted plants in the litigation process.” LOVE IT. Looking forward to how all this plays out, though I can’t see the court giving in to the PJI at all.
42.
Dave P. | September 8, 2010 at 2:46 pm
I noticed that one too. Hee hee : )
43.
Bennett | September 8, 2010 at 4:18 pm
ElectionWatch2010: Late breaking! Jerry Brown in statistical dead heat with NOM endorced potted ficus.
44.
Felyx | September 8, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Capitol Resources Institute writes:
“No elected official ought to be able to substitute his judgment for the decision of our courts.”
Does that apply to Hawai’i and Virginia governors as well?
If one actually took all the garbage put out by ANTI-GAY BIGOTS and Right-wingnuts in general and did a mash-up à la Rachael Maddows/Stephen Colbert/John Daily etc., throw in a little music with some voice re-synching, I bet you would have the most hilarious self-contradicting portrayal of this ‘idiot-ology’ of theirs!
Felyx – I need my Techsky Husband here to make this happen.
45.
Jeff | September 8, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Governors briefing here:
Click to access Gov%20Letter%20Brief.pdf
46.
James Tuttle | September 8, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Apparently people are VERY afraid proponents will not have standing.
47.
Bill | September 8, 2010 at 2:07 pm
That’s all this nonsense is really about.
Their panic is showing.
48.
Zachary | September 8, 2010 at 2:25 pm
As they should be.
49.
draNgNon | September 8, 2010 at 4:19 pm
maybe they are instead very afraid that they will do a bad job even if they DO have standing.
even if “past performance is no guarantee of future results” it sure is a good indicator.
50.
Anna Bryan | September 8, 2010 at 2:12 pm
It seems like this conservative organization is asking the California Supreme Court to be activist judges and force elected officials to do something they disagree with. Do I have that right?
51.
Steven | September 8, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Exactly!! I’m wondering what CA Supreme Court will do.. ?
52.
nightshayde | September 8, 2010 at 2:43 pm
No no no. They’re only “activist judges” if they make a ruling consistent with the wishes of liberals/progressives. If they make a ruling consistent with conservatives/reactionaries, they’re “doing their job.”
*sigh*
53.
Anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 3:19 pm
I am on the side of ANY brief that cites both People v. Picklesimer and People v. Funches in one paragraph, and I think that this should mean that Arnold wins automatically, and without further ado.
Who is with me?
On a more serious note, I object rather strenuously to the language that PJI used in referring to this case.
The California Supreme Court has ordered the Attorney General and the Governor to respond by 9 am this morning explaining why they have not filed this appeal. Then the Pacific Justice Institute has just three hours to respond by noon today.
“We are pleased that the judicial branch is at least considering forcing the executive branch to do its job,”
I believe the court did not “order” them “to respond” in quite the way that this implies nor did it order them to “explain why they have not filed this appeal”. I believe the court order stated that IF they were going to reply, it had to be done by 9am and it offered them the chance to explain their objections to PJI’s appeal, it did not tell them they must justify not appealing Perry v. Schwarzenegger. And no where did the court indicate that it was considering forcing anybody to do anything one way or the other, until briefs are filed, they don’t even look at it, if I am not mistaken.
If I were the court, I would ask PJI to consider its language more carefully in future.
54.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Well put.
55.
Bob Miller | September 8, 2010 at 10:58 pm
I’m glad someone finally pointed that out. The line about:
“We are pleased that the judicial branch is at least considering forcing the executive branch to do its job,”
seemed to be a really bad misread of what the court said. I certianly was able to figure tht out from the quote. I don’t even speak “lawyer”
56.
Bennett | September 8, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Did I read this right?
No elected official ought to be able to substitute his judgment for the decision of our courts, and no court ought to be able to substitute its judgement for the decision of a public referendum, and no public referendum ought to be able to substitute its decision for for my decision?
57.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 3:25 pm
I think you’ve got it. By George, you’ve got it.
58.
Anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Which means Bennett is now in charge of the Universe.
What are you going to do first, Bennett?
59.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I thought Bennett was going to sing. Sing a song from My Fair Lady. Yes, a song.
60.
Anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 3:38 pm
I still have hopes that he might! You never know!
61.
elliom | September 8, 2010 at 4:08 pm
62.
Chris From CO | September 8, 2010 at 3:45 pm
If no one can appeal by the 13th does it mean the stay is lifted and the case ends, or do they have to still wait till Dec. 6th the date that the appeals court siad “a stay at least until Dec 6th when the case will be heard.” Don’t know much about the rules!
63.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 3:58 pm
It means that they will hold a hearing(s) the week of Dec. 6 to hear arguments whether Imperial County and Protect Marriage have standing to appeal.
64.
Sagesse | September 8, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Ann S,
I could be wrong, but I thought they would hear everything… the arguments on standing and on the merits of the appeal, and decide everything at the end. In other words, if they decide the DIs don’t have standing, they won’t rule on the merits. If they find an acceptable basis to grant standing, then they’ll rule on the merits as well.
Sounds wasteful, but they’ve asked to be briefed on both matters (and Imperial County) for Dec 6.
65.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 5:27 pm
@Sagesse, you’re quite right. I keep forgetting that little detail.
66.
Jason The Opinionated | September 8, 2010 at 11:56 pm
But interestingly, that little maneuver keeps the SCOTUS out of the case until the 9th Circuit has its say. And the December timing may keep the next CA administration out as well.
67.
Bennett | September 8, 2010 at 4:06 pm
I dont know ow to sing. :)
68.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 4:21 pm
Ah, wouldn’t it be lovely, though?
69.
Greg in OZ | September 8, 2010 at 5:03 pm
oh! So luverly sittin absolutly bloomin’ still,
I would never budge till spring, steps over the windowsill
70.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Someone’s ‘ead restin’ in my knee
Warm and tender as ‘e can be
‘O tikes good care o’ me,
Ow, wouldn’t it be loverly??
71.
Greg in Oz | September 8, 2010 at 5:22 pm
LOL!!!
I just LOVE all the old song themes that keep appearing here.
They always brighten my day!
Lots o’ love to all\\
Greg in Oz (soon to be in San Francisco!!!!)
72.
Anonygrl | September 8, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Doesn’t matter! Make a happy noise, that will be fine!
73.
Felyx | September 8, 2010 at 4:12 pm
“Without even bothering to address the constitutional implications, petitioner asks this Court to ignore the law governing separation of powers and override the Attorney General’s exercise of discretion. ” – Reply from A.G. Brown
What is it with these people and the complete lack if understanding of separation of powers? Of course they DO seem to have a problem with separation of Church and State as well…
Sigh…. wonder if Russia is any better?
Felyx
74.
pgbach | September 8, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Felyx, you are absolutely correct. For those not of the legal profession, the AG’s & Governor’s responses (yes, long winded) are really assertions of separation of power between two branches of government. The AG & Governor has a duty to act… however, there is not duty to act in a specific manner. In other words, exercising discretion to not appeal is as much an act as a decision to appeal. The AG’s response is better written and legally stronger. This is not to fault the Governor’s response…. rather, the Governor should have never been named a party in this frivolous action.
75.
bJason | September 8, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Has anyone seen a response from PJI?
76.
elliom | September 8, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Are the rumors true?
Has the court ruled, and denied the petition?
77.
Jeff | September 8, 2010 at 4:41 pm
I haven’t seen the rumors? Link?
78.
elliom | September 8, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Petition for review denied
http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1954641&doc_no=S186072
79.
DazedWheels | September 8, 2010 at 4:43 pm
Thanks elliom!
80.
Jeff | September 8, 2010 at 4:44 pm
Looks like it… but I cant be sure from that…
81.
elliom | September 8, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Jeff:
Check under “Disposition” where it denies the review, and under “Case Summary” where it lists the case as closed.
82.
Ann S. | September 8, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Yes, I’ll take that as pretty definitive.
83.
Carpool Cookie | September 8, 2010 at 6:34 pm
I guess “Case Closed” does imply something…
: )
84.
Jeff | September 8, 2010 at 4:49 pm
Thanks! According to this it has been denied! http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/disposition.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1954641&doc_no=S186072
85.
Kate | September 8, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Spin THAT, NOMbies!
86.
Steven | September 8, 2010 at 4:59 pm
DENIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HA HA it took less than 36 hours lol
87.
Linda | September 8, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Oooooo, how’s *that* for a slap-down, Maggie?
Damn that Constitution! It gets in your way every time, doesn’t it?
88.
Jeff | September 8, 2010 at 5:05 pm
(09-08) 16:53 PDT SAN FRANCISCO — The state Supreme Court dealt a setback to California’s ban on same-sex marriage today, refusing to order Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal a federal judge’s ruling striking down the voter-approved measure.
The state officials’ refusal to argue in support of Proposition 8 has raised questions about whether anyone is legally qualified to defend it in court. The conservative Pacific Justice Institute filed suit last week, arguing that the California Constitution requires Brown to defend the state’s laws.
89.
bJason | September 8, 2010 at 5:09 pm
HA! Read it and Freep!!!
90.
Kate | September 8, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Hi Jason! good to see you again
91.
bJason | September 8, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Thanks. I’m always here. I just don’t come out of the woodwork too often.
Always a pleasure. :)
92.
Steven | September 8, 2010 at 5:29 pm
the justices were laughing their heads off when they DENIED the request……. lol
93.
Carpool Cookie | September 8, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Revenge of the “potted plants”.
94.
draNgNon | September 8, 2010 at 6:36 pm
only about the “potted plant” remark.
95.
Kate | September 8, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Ann S. — So what’s next, “their” appeal/standing filing on 9/17? Is it possible that the 9th will choose to decide standing without having to wait until December? Seems mighty silly to treat the DIs as though they really had anything once they file their “reasoning.”
96.
draNgNon | September 8, 2010 at 6:39 pm
well, the DIs brief will contain their arguments toward their having standing. the Plaintiff’s response will address those arguments, and the DIs will have a brief to file in response to the response. given those filing requirements, I sorta doubt that there will be an early ruling on standing.
97.
pgbach | September 8, 2010 at 7:19 pm
correct, there is no reason for a early ruling on standing… it will be forthcoming around Christmas and I pray it will be a lovely Christmas gift!
98.
Richard A. Walter (soon to be Walter-Jernigan) | September 8, 2010 at 7:32 pm
Actually, the first hearing is scheduled during the closing days of Chanukkah, which this year begins at sundown the Wednesday evening after Thanksgiving. that would be a wonderful Chanukkah present to see. And we will all probably be celebrating long after Christmas and the common New Year.
99.
Paul in Minneapolis | September 8, 2010 at 5:48 pm
No elected official ought to be able to substitute his judgment for the decision of our courts.
Perhaps I do not understand this, so please correct me if I’m wrong…
1. The court decided that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.
2. Schwarzenegger and Brown agree with the court.
3. Therefore, by not appealing, the elected officials Schwarzenegger and Brown are not substituting their judgment for the decision of our court.
4. CRI is getting its wish, so what is its effin’ problem?!
100.
bJason | September 8, 2010 at 5:58 pm
The problem is that you are attempting to put their arguments into a LOGICAL framework.
Haven’t you learned better, yet? :)
101.
pgbach | September 8, 2010 at 7:17 pm
bJason, you are so correct….. right wing & logical are mutually exclusive paradigms.
102.
Dave in ME | September 8, 2010 at 7:47 pm
More, please.
Dave in Maine
103.
GRod | September 8, 2010 at 8:09 pm
@ Dave in ME
Read the AG and Gov letter brief to the Supremes. They are very telling.
What are the recent developments in Maine? Given the parallel between Maine and CA, can we hope that Maine is finding ways to advance the SSM cause. Beside the other New England States, you have Quebec and New Brunswick to inspire you.
104.
Sheryl Carver | September 8, 2010 at 8:32 pm
I just realized something about the NOMers et al. It’s the meaning of the word “separation” that they don’t understand!
As in,separation</strong of Church & State, and separation</strong of the 3 branches of government.
So all the NOMers need is a really good vocabulary lesson & this conflict all disappears!
Sigh. I wish. Oh, well.
105.
Sheryl Carver | September 8, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Oops, messed up the HTML. Sorry.
106.
Tim in Sonoma | September 9, 2010 at 12:45 pm
I’m going to be in Puerto Vallarta Mexico when all this comes to a head in Dec. I look forward to toasting all of you from my beach chair at Blue Chairs Beach Resort!!
Tequilla any one?