Leave a Comment Johan
BREAKING: California Supreme Court expected to deliver ruling today
February 16, 2011
By Adam Bink
According to the Los Angeles Times, today the California Supreme Court is expected to deliver a ruling today in the Prop 8 case. I’m told this could merely be a ruling on whether to accept the question submitted by the 9th Circuit or not… or could be a ruling on the standing issue, e.g. whether proponents of Prop 8 have standing, under state law, to represent the entire state of California when state officials decline to do so. Ultimately, though, the issue will be kicked back to the 9th Circuit.
We’ll have coverage and reaction as the ruling comes down.
Update: P8TT friend Karen Ocamb has the six letters submitted arguing the issue of standing over at LGBTPOV, for a good refresher.
Update2: Aside, while we’re waiting for this to come down, reminder to all we’re having our panel on new ways of organizing around LGBTQ equality using new media starting in 15 minutes or so, at 9 PST/12 EST. I’m co-moderating with Chris Geidner of Metro Weekly.
You can dial in at (712) 432-1001 using Access Code: 438365410#
And submit questions via questions@equalitythinking.org. If you’re a P8TTer, give a shout-out!
Filed under: Prop 8 trial
Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!
124 Comments Leave a Comment
1.
Ed Cortes | February 15, 2011 at 11:32 pm
scribin'
2.
Mackenzie | February 15, 2011 at 11:34 pm
come on progress!
3.
BARB | February 15, 2011 at 11:36 pm
I understood that they were meeting in a closed session to decide whether to accept the certified question. I don't know how long for them to issue such a decision, but I would expect at least a few days? Lawyers?
4.
Gregory in Salt Lake | February 15, 2011 at 11:46 pm
What distracting news! How can I work today!? subs : /
5.
adambink | February 15, 2011 at 11:52 pm
I understand to be the same, and I am told by people who know the CASC like the back of their hand that it'll be months, and even that will be "fast". We will see.
6.
LCH | February 16, 2011 at 12:16 am
(♀♀)=(♂♂)=(♀♂)=∑♡
7.
Ronnie | February 16, 2011 at 12:21 am
That is =….
<3…Ronnie
8.
James Tuttle | February 16, 2011 at 12:24 am
OHHH exciting!!!! Glad I checked tracker first thing this morning =-) xo everyone
9.
James Tuttle | February 16, 2011 at 12:26 am
Oh poop…so…no decision today on whether or not to take the question? Possibly months? Uh-oh…I need a wee bit of clarification.
10.
Lesbians Love Boies | February 16, 2011 at 12:39 am
My gut says that they WILL accept. Can't wait.
Also, Hawaii is supposed to vote today..
Gonna be a big day, and I have clients who need things done today. I think we need a text message list, you text these folks, then you forward to these when these things come in.
11.
Peterplumber | February 16, 2011 at 12:43 am
♂♂
12.
AnonyGrl | February 16, 2011 at 12:43 am
Perhaps it will only take months if they decide to take on the questions, but will be a simple "Not going there, thanks!" if they don't?
13.
Gregory in Salt Lake | February 16, 2011 at 1:10 am
I appreciate your insight….court announcements often befuddle me!
14.
Shelly & Simie | February 16, 2011 at 1:19 am
We can not wait cause this will be a day in history indeed!!!! We r keeping u all in our thoughts as we wait 4 the ruling hopfully it is in our favor!!!
15.
Alan E. | February 16, 2011 at 1:28 am
The decision to whether they will make a decision. That is the question for the day?
16.
Kathleen | February 16, 2011 at 1:37 am
Today is the Court's usual weekly conference, where the judges decide whether or not to take cases that have been brought to them. The reporter at the L.A. Times appears to have information that the Perry case is one of the cases they'll be deciding on today.
IF they decide to take the case, they will most likely ask for briefs and set oral arguments before actually answering the questions certified to them by the 9th Circuit, a process that generally takes months. But If they make a decision today on whether or not to take this case, we might hear about that decision today, but should definitely hear by the end of the week at the latest.
Here's a good article that discusses some of the possible ways the Court might respond to the request: http://www.atthelectern.com/same-sex-marriage-cas…
17.
Gregory in Salt Lake | February 16, 2011 at 1:42 am
….. cleansing breath to stimulate patience….and a smile of gratitude for Kathleen : )
18.
Kathleen | February 16, 2011 at 1:46 am
DazedWheels asked me to post this for him (he can't post from his present location)
It's a particularly hateful op-ed piece in today's WV Charleston Gazette
From the article:
"… Such halfway measures do not work, as recently proved in California, where a similar watered-down amendment ultimately led to full recognition not only of civil unions, but of same-sex "marriage" as well. West Virginia must avoid this slippery slope and enact a strong, comprehensive Marriage Protection Amendment now. … and … West Virginia Family Foundation believes that with God, all things are possible, and that if enough people contact their legislators to demand the people's right to vote, we can pass an authentic Marriage Protection Amendment that actually protects the institution of marriage, including preventing marriage counterfeits or forcing taxpayers to provide marriage benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees. …"
Full article here: http://www.wvgazette.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries…
19.
Dave in ME | February 16, 2011 at 1:50 am
Me too!
20.
Peterplumber | February 16, 2011 at 2:05 am
with God, all things are possible
Including marraige equality!!!
21.
Steven | February 16, 2011 at 2:12 am
Just waiting.. 45 more mins..
22.
AnonyGrl | February 16, 2011 at 2:20 am
WITHOUT God, legislation that follows the Constitution of the United States of America is possible.
Please stop trying to force your morailty into my country's equality, Kevin McCoy of West Virginia! Your god is NOT my god.
23.
AnonyGrl | February 16, 2011 at 2:20 am
I do have to say that I like that the comments seem to be pro-equality.
24.
Richard A. Jernigan | February 16, 2011 at 2:21 am
Let us know how it goes!
25.
chris from co | February 16, 2011 at 2:25 am
Good luck California. I'm praying for you today, Hawaii to. Every state counts on these issues : )
26.
Carpool Cookie | February 16, 2011 at 2:35 am
Come on, Progress, Come on, Progress….Move Yer Bloomin' Arse!!!!
27.
Michael Herman | February 16, 2011 at 2:35 am
I'm actually hoping that they do have standing, so the trial can go on. The Yes on 8 side has absolutely no case, as shown in the trial with Judge Walker. Let them expose their lies!
28.
Kathleen | February 16, 2011 at 2:37 am
NO this isn't what we're waiting for, so don't get too excited, but here's something on the Perry case:
Remember Margie Reilly, the individual who filed an amicus brief in support of Proponents? Well, she's decided she has something to say to the CA Supreme Court as well. This was rec'd by the 9th Circuit on Feb 9 and just went on the docket today. There's no indication that the CA Supreme Court has placed it on the official docket, and don't know if they will.
But it makes for amusng reading to occupy your time while waiting for more meaningful developments.
Margie Reilly Letter to CA Supreme Court http://www.scribd.com/doc/48968709
And to refresh your memory, here's her amicus brief in the 9th Circuit appeal (be sure to read the statement of interest to see how "relevant" her opinion is on the legal issues involved: http://www.scribd.com/doc/37968911
29.
Richard A. Jernigan | February 16, 2011 at 2:38 am
Yes, but even if they have standing, from this point on, there is no more testimony. At this stage of the game, everything is done with legal briefs and oral arguments before the panel of justices by the attorneys. That is why everyone except the Prop H8 side wanted the trial to be televised, even if it were on a delayed basis–to expose the lies that they are still trying to use to promote discrimination.
30.
Ronnie | February 16, 2011 at 2:39 am
ROFL….Carpool Cookie…I can't help it…I have to post this…. <3..Ronnie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kBNr3djnZM
31.
Carpool Cookie | February 16, 2011 at 2:39 am
Thanks. Kathleen's post will help me answer questions at the office.
32.
Peterplumber | February 16, 2011 at 2:42 am
Where would we be without Kathleen??
♥ ♥ ♥ Kathleen
33.
Carpool Cookie | February 16, 2011 at 2:46 am
Yes : ) Like this one:
"This article has more garbage than the Charleston Landfill.
Those articles make me think that Christianists have way too much time on their hands. Why don't they find a real cause? Are they just lazy, and don't want to undertake more solid contributions?
34.
tess | February 16, 2011 at 2:49 am
Argggh. It's like every few weeks, it's another step in the case to set me on edge… This case needs to move on, move up to the final courts, and reach the inevitable conclusion of marriage equality so we can stop having this painful trickle of different states voting away our rights.
Marriage equality was just banned in Indiana (http://ow.ly/3XBiZ). :/
35.
Carpool Cookie | February 16, 2011 at 2:51 am
Yes! Last week a few people (other legal secretaries!) were interested in the big decision coming down, thinking it was the 9th Circuit one. The headlines were kind of confusing for the general public.
I closed my eyes and robotically recited the facts.
Did not get a raise for my pains, dammit.
36.
Steven | February 16, 2011 at 2:52 am
tess,
Marriage Equality WAS NOT BANNED…… yes, it passed Indiana's house….
37.
AnonyGrl | February 16, 2011 at 2:57 am
I couldn't read most of it because the font was all choppy, but is she trying to argue that the Proponents of Prop 8 HAVE standing but the Plaintiffs do not?? That somehow the PLAINTIFFS can't show particularized harm and so the whole case should be vacated?
Is that even a legitimate argument?
38.
AnonyGrl | February 16, 2011 at 3:01 am
Argh, none the less. Are there indications whether it likely to pass the Senate?
39.
Felyx&Kevyn | February 16, 2011 at 3:01 am
LOL, we managed to call in all the way from Russia just in time to catch the last four minutes of the discussion! Oh well, at least we can catch the audio later!
F&K
40.
fiona64 | February 16, 2011 at 3:02 am
Okay … Palm Springs' infamous "cross lady" strikes again — and brings up the Magna Carta (hint: not part of US law) as a reason why Prop 8 should be upheld? Really?
Wow.
Love,
Fiona (who is wondering how the release of Prince Llewellyn of Wales from prison, which is one of the guarantees of the Magna Carta, applies …)
41.
Manilow | February 16, 2011 at 3:04 am
Right? My boss already gave me two projects today – but how can I focus on them now!?!
42.
Steven | February 16, 2011 at 3:05 am
yes, it looks like it will pass in the Senate, but it needs to passed twice before voters get a chance to vote on it.. So, earliest they could ban marriage equality is in 2014
43.
adambink | February 16, 2011 at 3:05 am
How about that!
Audio will be posted at the eQualityGiving page.
44.
gaydadtobe | February 16, 2011 at 3:09 am
There is a new kids' book out that will surely give rise to more calls of "indoctrination." The best part is that Molly McKay is quoted for a review =) Love her!
The book is called "My Uncle's Wedding."
http://wp.me/p1m3UB-13
45.
nightshayde | February 16, 2011 at 3:13 am
She's quoting the Magna Carta. How could she be wrong?
Wait … wut?
46.
nightshayde | February 16, 2011 at 3:14 am
… by which time, all such bans will hopefully have been rendered unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.
*crosses fingers*
47.
Peterplumber | February 16, 2011 at 3:15 am
I converted it to a word doc, and you can download it here.
It didn't convert well, but it is more readable than the PDF
http://www.567thadm.org/personal/Margie.docx
If the link doesn't work, someone please let me know.
48.
tess | February 16, 2011 at 3:15 am
Thank you for the clarification, Steven! I just keep seeing 'ban' and getting upset. Hopefully it won't go any further!
49.
Alan E. | February 16, 2011 at 3:17 am
I can see where she is going with the Magna Carta, but it is only symbolic and holds no influence in or court of law. The Magna Carta is basically the initial spark for democracy because it limited what the king could do. By quoting the Magna Carta, she is claiming that the "king" (the governor and attorney general) is claiming more power than s/he actually has. This is ignorant, though, because she puts too much weight behind it by quoting it way out of actual context.
50.
Kathleen | February 16, 2011 at 3:40 am
Oh, is that who this is? Too funny. Just occurred to me that the California Supreme Court may not put this on the docket because is was received past the deadline.
51.
nightshayde | February 16, 2011 at 3:43 am
Not to mention the fact that it has nothing to do with anything.
Oops. I mentioned it.
52.
Gregory in Salt Lake | February 16, 2011 at 3:46 am
lol!
53.
Gregory in Salt Lake | February 16, 2011 at 3:48 am
Ugh….don't know how states can still actually pass "bans" like this and speak so confidently and keep a "straight" face:
Rep. Eric Turner, a Republican and author of the amendment, was quoted as saying passing the measure was necessary to maintain the current definition of family.
“The basic unit of society is the family, and the cornerstone of the family is marriage,” Turner was quoted as saying. ”Marriage is, and should be, the union of one man and one woman.”
54.
Gregory in Salt Lake | February 16, 2011 at 3:56 am
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
55.
AnonyGrl | February 16, 2011 at 4:01 am
I clicked the link and got :
PK!Ýü•7f [Content_Types].xml ¢( ´TËnÂ0¼Wê?D¾V‰¡‡ªª ú8¶H¥ `ì XõKöòúûnDU A*å)YïÌììăÑÚšl 1iïJÖ/z,'½ÒnV²ÉK~ϲ„Â)a¼ƒ’m…
Sadness.
56.
fiona64 | February 16, 2011 at 4:03 am
Yep, that's who she is. She blogs regularly for the Palm Springs Desert Sun, sharing her particular brand of crazy. (Remember the whole "African-Americans used to be called Zoo Loos" thing I posted about a while back? That's what Jeff and I now call the restrooms at the animal park, BTW …)
I feel kind of sorry for her — because there is an attorney out there who is dishonest enough to take her money for preparing this ridiculous briefs. Elder abuse is rampant among people who look after people in various stages of dementia — and I would bet that Margie is just such a one.
Love,
Fiona
57.
Peterplumber | February 16, 2011 at 4:04 am
Notice the file extension…docx
It requires Word version 2007. If you are on an older version that may be the trouble.
58.
Kathleen | February 16, 2011 at 4:04 am
Be glad to send it to you as an email attachment. Send me an email letting me know which address you want it sent to. ('cause we love havin' a mess-o-crazy to read at least once a day).
59.
AnonyGrl | February 16, 2011 at 4:10 am
I'll wait till I get home and try it there… shouldn't be trying to download to the work computer anyway… and I will let you know if I am still having troubles. Thanks to both of you for the help!!!
60.
Ed Cortes | February 16, 2011 at 4:12 am
There are compatibility add-ins available for office 2003. Office should offer to download them when you try to open a docx file, or you can just go to microsoft.com and look for it there.
61.
Gregory in Salt Lake | February 16, 2011 at 4:13 am
carry over topic from yesterday…some wonder about calling this sight something more inclusive than Prop8 Trial Tracker. My hubby suggests:
….suggest call the blog "STNDNGBY" (standing by) since that's how many are… waiting for news, and for changes to happen!
62.
Gregory in Salt Lake | February 16, 2011 at 4:17 am
aka site! I am so very busy and so VERY tired these days….though "sight" could imply other things…
63.
AnonyGrl | February 16, 2011 at 4:19 am
While I think that is cute, I would say no for two reasons. One is that it doesn't immediately identify what the issues are that we are Standing By for… as saying "Prop 8" or even "8" does…so it is not informative to someone casually browsing a search list. The second is that I hope we are not just standing by waiting, but we are actively out there doing stuff to accomplish our goals..
Just my two cents (having been recently involved in a "what the heck do we call this website" discussion elsewhere that has me thinking about the issues of choosing an internet name).
64.
Gregory in Salt Lake | February 16, 2011 at 4:21 am
good in-sites ; ) love you Anony!
65.
Richard A. Jernigan | February 16, 2011 at 4:22 am
I got a whole bunch of symbols.
66.
Richard A. Jernigan | February 16, 2011 at 4:27 am
And I have Word 2007 as part of Office 2007 on my laptop.
67.
Canadian JAG Officer | February 16, 2011 at 4:29 am
Not to mention that there is no longer a birth monarch in California or USA but ELECTED governor and attorney general, which results in legitimized power to do things like…. not appeal or defend laws that have been struck down as unconstitutional while they also believe it is unconstitutional!
68.
Lesbians Love Boies | February 16, 2011 at 4:31 am
Well, since technically it's not just about stopping H8, or marriage, or so many of the other LGBT issues, it should be a name about equality — IMHO.
I liked Stop H8, but that's already used.
69.
Ronnie | February 16, 2011 at 4:33 am
Watch: Mormon Mom Reposts Video Speaking Out for Same-Sex Marriage Despite Threats from Church Officials http://www.towleroad.com/2011/02/mormon.html
So this brave woman posted this video in 2008 in support of Marriage Equality but removed it when, surprise surprise, she was threatened by her church (The Mormon church)….well, Melanie has decided to repost it to once again show her support for Marriage Equality…..
Melanie writes:
"I did not discuss the video with my local leaders before making it public, but they were directed to it by church headquarters. At the end of some very heart felt discussions, my speaking out with this video threatened my temple recommend and my calling, and I ultimately chose to take it down to protect my standing in the church.
I have lived to regret the decision. And so today, in honor of the Valentine legend and in support of the love that drives so many of us to share our lives with each other, I stand up once more in favor of marriage, all marriage, with my Prop 8 video."
(me) Thank you, Melanie, for your love & support…you are a courageous woman…<3…Ronnie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embed…
70.
Peterplumber | February 16, 2011 at 4:37 am
The I Ion. Tani Cantil-sakaule- Chief-lustice
and Associate Justices
Stlpreme Court of Califomia
350 McAllister Street
San Francisco. CA 94l 02
ItE: Pel.l7' $'. Sclnt'arzenegger ( Ilollingnbvorlhb. California Supreme Court #' S l :9476 – tl. – o j j).j(5,(.)(j Certification Requcst pending lrom the 9 Cir. U.S. Court ot Appeals
Dear Chieflustice and Associate Justices:
.qmictts i-l/?-@tle Margie Reilly, has appeared in this case previously on the question of Prop 8
(/?? re hlul-riage (.W.&e.5' ( 2008) 4 3 CaI.4th 757 ( 5147999. May. l5. 2008). and has apxared in the
9'11 Circuit as Amicus Curiae to detknd Proposition 8. and hereby, in accordance with Califomia
Rule of Court 8.548(c)(3)I in response to thc City and County of San Francisco lettcr of January
24. 20 l l . resqectfully submits that rcsponse to the certifsed questions appear to be warranted. that the questlon presented shotlld be answered in the affirmative. and that other issues raixd by
the principal question suggests that those additional observations should be submitted with its
rcsponse to the request tbr ccrtitication as follows:
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
&. CERTIFIED QUESTION:
l'hether under Article II. Section 8 of the California Constitution. or othenvise under
California Iaw. the ofticial proponents of an initiative mcasure possess eithcr a particularized
intcrest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assert the State's interest in the initiative's
N alidity. which would enable them to defend the constitutionality' of the initiative upon its
adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative. when the public ofticials charged with
that duty retkse to do so-?
B. OTIIEK REASONABLY RELATED,QUESTIONS:
Whether under Article II. Section 8 of the Calitbrnia Constitution. or otherwise under
California law. the omcial opponents of an initiativz measure possess either a panicularized
intcrest in the initiativc's validity or the authority to asxd thc State's intcrest in the initiativc's
validity. which would enable them to oppose the constitutionality of the initiative upon îts
adoption or appeal a judgment to invalidate the initiative. when the public oftscials charged with
that duty refuse to do so-'?
SUSSNIARY OF ARGUSIENTS
l . svhcthcr under Article Il. Section 8 of the California Constitution. or othcrwise under
Calitbrnia law. by virtuc of Article 1. jj .3 & 24 thc oftscial proponents and opponents of an
Case: 10-16696 02/16/2011 Page: 1 of 11 ID: 7650484 DktEntry: 302
initiative mcasurc do possess standing to petition tbr redress on the issue of uhether a
- ition or initiativc is collstitutional tlndcr California I-aAv. or rkderal I 4* Al-ncndlnenpj opos t
glrtlnds. U ith a particularized interest in the initiative's validity or the authority to assel the
Gtate's interest in the initiative's validity. which would enable them to challenge or detknd the
eonstitutionality of thc initiative tlpon its adoption or appeal a judgment regarding the initiative.
U hen the publ ic ot-ticials charged with that duty refuse to do so. Sve -vcl/t?rtl#.T'. Selinger v. L'il)'
( blzz/cï/ ( l 989) 2 l 6 Cal-App-3d 259. 272: (''0ur system of government places a high value on the
I'rcxodom of the publie to petition the gtyvemment, and suelz aetivity will not be curtniled vvithout
some extcaordinary showing of abuse-'' ( Id. at p. 859.))-. Pueijlc GJA' tf Elech%. 6W. l.. Beur
h-/t,z/rr?.& ttr (b. ( l 990) 50 Cal-3d l I l 8. fn. 1 4.. (—l-his doctrine relies on the constitutional right to
pctition tbr rcdress of grievanccs to cstablish that there is no antitrtlq liability tbr petitioning any
branch of government- evk!n ifthe motive is anticompetitive–).
a. Article l . jj 3 and 24 protects the rights of the Pcoplc to assemble tbr the purpose of
instnlcting govemment and their representatives. on how to provide for the common good. in this
case. the promotion of traditional families for thc pxduction of nmv Iifc so that the slatc can
endure. and to promote Inonogamy to prevent the spread of dangerous diseases in the
community. and j 24.
b. Article 1 . j 3- also protects the rights of the People to peacefully %semble and to petition
Ibr redrtlss ol' gritvancvs. The traditional means of petititming Ibr rtldrtss ol- pttrceivtd abuses t)1-
government power. or any other power which detines govemment power is a pdition tbr a writ
of- man date .prohibition. or review in the courts of law. Black-s Law Dictionary (Revised 4U' cd
l 968). Mandamus. p. l l l 3. Section 3 secures to the Pcoplt the right to pctition as to whethcr a
particular adoption of a constitutional provision is appropriate. or an abuse of power. Both this
provision and First Amendment appear to be derived from the 3lkmu f 'urta ( I 5 1 4) Article 6 l .
See generally. Constitution of the United States of America: Anall'sis & Interpretation
( l 992).Senate Document # 1 03-6 p. l 1 87. fn. 207. Tvhich is to the same etrect: see also. There
was a common Iaw right to pctition tbr rcdress of gricvances. McKechnie. TI Ilg. ,lJ 147.:'.1 (.*. tRI'. 1.
Art. 6 I ( 1 2 15) : Petition of Right 162:: English Bill of Rights ( 1685): Schwallz- TI IL' BILL 01.*
RIGI I 1*:: A DIK'LCNIU',N'I',A.ltY l1IS I'ORY. A copy of the Petition of Rizht and English Bill of Rights
can be tbund in the McGeorge School of Law Library and on the University ofcalifornia on Iine
Melvyl library catalog at Ilttn:/ 'melvs l.cdlib.ortz/. Most are houxd in the British Law section.
CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED
SIAGNA Charta (15141 Article tchapterl 61
'- Since. moreover. for God and the betterment of our kingdom and for the better allaying of
the discord that has arisen between us and our barons we have gramed aII thege things aforesaid.
wishing thcm to enjoy the use of them unimpaired and unshakcn for ever. we give and grant
them the under-written sccurity. namely- that the barons shall choose any twenty-tive barons of
the kingdom they vvisb. vvho mus't vvith aII their migbê obsenre. hold and cause to be observed.
the pcace and Iiberties which we have granted and contsrmed to them by this present chartcr of
I1()B 2 l 5802. Sacramento. (-. A 9582 1-81102
( ) I1i ce: ( L) l fl ) 3 l 2 – 7.969 lulnai 1.* jjDlj lltlh j rrkjjanlesjosephly nchjr-ctAln
Case: 10-16696 02/16/2011 Page: 2 of 11 ID: 7650484 DktEntry: 302
ours. so that if we- or our justiciartlj. or our bailiffs or any one of our servants offend in any way against anyonc or transgrcss any of the articles of tbc pcace or the xcurity and the oflknce be
notitied to tour of the atbresaid twenty-tsve barons. thox tbur barons shall come to us. or to our
j usticiar if we arv out of the kingdom. and. laying the transgression betbre us. shall petititm us to
Ilave that transgression corrected Nvithout delay. And if sve do not eorrect the transgression. or if
svc are out of the kingdom. if our justiciar does not correct it. within tbrty days. reckoning from
(l1e time it was brought to our noticc or to that of our iusticiar if we were out of the kingdom- lhc
aforexaid four barong xhall refer that case to the rext of the twenty-tlve barons and those twentytive
barons together with the community of the whole Iand shall distrain and distress us in every
nay they can. namely. by seizing castles. lands. possessions. and in such other wal's as they can.
saving our person and the persons of our queen and our childrenx until. in their opinion- amends
have bccn made: and when amends have been made. they shall obvy us as they ditl beforc.
t*A1-1 FORNIA CONSTI'I'U'I-ION. ARTICI-E IIIJ-(JI-A RA I'ION OF RIGI ITS.
provides. inter alia. as tbllows:
'-SEC. 3. The people have the right to ingtruct their representatives. petition government tbr
redress ofgrievances. and assemble freely to consult for the common g(xxl.–
''SECTION 24. '-ftights guacanteed by this Constitution are not dcpendent on those
guarantced by the United States Constittltion. . . . . . This declaration of rights may not be
constrtled to impair or deny others retaincd b)' the pcoplc.'-
ARTICI,E 2. VOTING. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. AND RECALL providts.z
inter alia.
'-SECTION ) . AlI political power is inhcrent in the people. Government is instituted for
thcir protection. scqurity, and benefst. and they have the right to alter or retbrm it when the ptlblic
ood may rcquire.-g –
–SEC. s. (a) The initiative is îhe power of the elkctors to propose statutes and amendments
to the Constitution and to adopt or rcject them. '-
In Selinger v. Lhv i-o?gl?t'# ( l 989) 2 I 6 Cal.zNpp.3d 259. 272. the coul4 observed. '-The City
Council's standing to raise this issue is funher supported by the analogous principle that the
govemment generally cannot be estopped by the conduct of its individual oëcers where to do so
wollld confravene an important pllblic policy. ft 'in, /?/' l r)n.g ljeoe'h &, blan%ell ( 1 974)) 1 ('J1I. ld
l tIn oId English Law. 28. judge or justice. One of Several persons learncd in the aw. ho sa in the uulu r(?.f#.j'. tbrmed a kind ofcourt of appeal in caùes ofdifticulty. Also spelled juxticivr. 1 Z See alm. AR'rl(-l-E I 8 .XNIENDING AN D REVISING 'ITIE CONSTl'rU'rl()N
1N)8 2 I 5802. Sacnlmenlo- CA 9582 I -11&)2
(. ) l lice: t t.l 1 (t j 3 I 2'..7 369 l:l11al 11 j ' 1) IlchJ' l-riJlz.lllesjOseplllô nclj r.t:Ol!1 1
Case: 10-16696 02/16/2011 Page: 3 of 11 ID: 7650484 DktEntry: 302
462. 493. Thc rationale )br this rulc is that local citizens should not suffer because govemment
officials ncglect their duty- I Iere. I ikmvise. the City's fai Iure to provide notice and a hearing
should not dcstroy local citizens' rights to procedural due process—
By the same tokcn. the Proponents standing to raise this issue. detknse of the proposition. is
supported by the analogous principal that the Ntate of C'alifornia cannot be estopped by the
conduct of its individual otlscets. here the attorney gcneralw where to do * Avould contravene an
important public policy. The rationale tbr this rule is that the Citizcns of the State. the
Sovereignty. should not suffer becatlse govemment otxcials neglect their duty. See also. by
analogy.
CONCI-USION
This Court rightly determined that Proposition 8. detlning Marriage, was proNrly decided and
upheld it. nus. this court ought to take the certifsed question. and related qtlesîions to answer in
the affirmative. based on Selinger. ws'l/przz. that the People of the State of Califomia have standing
to defknd a proposition which the Constitution guaranteed them to adopt.
71.
Gregory in Salt Lake | February 16, 2011 at 4:37 am
Agree with all you said. My hubby's perspective is understandable too. Sometimes he feels so restricted by inequality on every level of his life. One avenue we are seeking relief was denied 2 days ago…so feel very much like life is on standby at the moment : ( BIG sigh….
72.
nightshayde | February 16, 2011 at 4:38 am
If she's not actually in a stage of dementia (and just happens to be a pro-discrimination drone), then I'm glad someone is taking her for as much as he can. That's less money that she can donate to NOM or similar groups.
If she does truly have mental health issues (age-related or otherwise), then yes — it's just sad.
73.
Teddy Partridge | February 16, 2011 at 4:45 am
I don't understand your headline. The LATimes article says there's a 'meeting' and that this case might be taken up. But why do you raise hopes of a 'delivered ruling?'
That seems incorrect, raising unfair expectations. Have you additional information that leads you to believe there's a ruling coming? Because I see nothing in the LATimes article to suggest that.
74.
Gregory in Salt Lake | February 16, 2011 at 4:47 am
Love you you Melanie! Thank you!
75.
Kathleen | February 16, 2011 at 4:50 am
Teddy, the only ruling we can reasonably expect today is on the question of whether the Court will accept the case from the 9th Circuit. I don't think anyone expects the Court today to actually answer to questions certified to it. (not to say they couldn't, but I'll be shocked if they do).
76.
Lesbians Love Boies | February 16, 2011 at 4:55 am
I think it's a misconception many have. It should probably be a little worded better, because the headline does imply a ruling of the question, and not just whether they will take on the question.
77.
Carpool Cookie | February 16, 2011 at 4:59 am
Well, here's something to keep us all busy while we're waiting….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHVTYay–3E
78.
Gregory in Salt Lake | February 16, 2011 at 5:05 am
Hawaii news anyone???
79.
adambink | February 16, 2011 at 5:05 am
Hey Teddy, nice to see you over here. Several legal sources I talked to raised the possibility that the court will rule on more than whether to just take up the question
Of course, it's incumbent upon people to actually read the text of the post, where I say that it's expected the Court will decide whether to take up the question, but may do more.
80.
Kathleen | February 16, 2011 at 5:09 am
Adam, almost anything is possible, given the Court's discretion to act. But has anyone suggested that there's more than a really outside chance that the Court will do anything more decide whether or not to take the question certified to it? If so, do you care to mention what source(s)?
81.
Teddy Partridge | February 16, 2011 at 5:15 am
Hi Adam! As a journalist/activist, you shouldn't be required to reveal your source(s) but it would be nice to characterize them somewhat more specifically than "I'm told…."
You've got commenters neglecting their work while refreshing their browsers for a "ruling" — which no one I've spoken with thinks will happen today.
Time will tell.
82.
Steven | February 16, 2011 at 5:29 am
They are having their weekly conference on cases which they will decide to accept or denied..
Its strange that they haven't posted any updates… They usually do by 10 am.
83.
fiona64 | February 16, 2011 at 5:32 am
She also re-posted it at Mormons for Marriage.
As I said to her on M4M, it is never too late to do the right thing, follow your own best vibration, and stand up with integrity.
Love,
Fiona
84.
JonT | February 16, 2011 at 5:40 am
☮
85.
Kathleen | February 16, 2011 at 5:42 am
Yes, Teddy, I should have been more clear in my request. I wasn't asking for names, just a characterization. I would never ask, let alone expect, someone to reveal names.
86.
DazedWheels | February 16, 2011 at 5:53 am
Thank you again Kathleen! And thanks to Peterplumber, AnonyGrl (nice comment!), and Carpool Cookie.
87.
Leo | February 16, 2011 at 6:01 am
If they accept, will we also get the briefing schedule today?
88.
Gregory in Salt Lake | February 16, 2011 at 6:03 am
thank you for acknowledging Melanie!
89.
Kathleen | February 16, 2011 at 6:04 am
I don't know. I suppose it depends to some extent on whether they consider this a matter worth expediting.
90.
BK | February 16, 2011 at 6:45 am
Can't wait (!) even though I have to…
91.
Carpool Cookie | February 16, 2011 at 6:47 am
I'm disturbed by any adult who calls themselves Margie.
Does her voice sound like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kA1jmnPZgk
92.
Kerri | February 16, 2011 at 6:49 am
I wish they would just rule on the issue already! We are subjected to this anticipatioin and anxiety everytime something is announced … this compounds my already high daily stress level.
93.
Rhie | February 16, 2011 at 7:00 am
Scribing
94.
adambink | February 16, 2011 at 7:00 am
Like Kathleen says, anything could happen.
95.
adambink | February 16, 2011 at 7:01 am
I don't, because I said I wouldn't. Again, people should read the text of the post, not just a headline.
96.
Steve | February 16, 2011 at 7:02 am
That's true. Following a god there can be no genuine morality. Divine command theory is the equivalent of "anything goes". No justice and no crime are heinous enough that they couldn't be justified by "god's will"
97.
John | February 16, 2011 at 7:02 am
Wow.
98.
nightshayde | February 16, 2011 at 7:09 am
F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5
*deep breath*
F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 …
99. Tweets that mention BREAK&hellip | February 16, 2011 at 7:09 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by phillip anderson, OUT, Doug Foote, Mary Renk, BarTGila and others. BarTGila said: RT @EqualityOnTrial: BREAKING: California Supreme Court expected to deliver ruling today http://wp.me/pLuL9-2dm [...]
100.
Alan E. | February 16, 2011 at 7:11 am
You don't? Don't what?! I didn't bother to read the rest of what was written in your post or any context before it.
101.
James Tuttle | February 16, 2011 at 7:17 am
People seem on edge today.I hope everyone is having a good day so far though =-) Hopefully we will be getting some news soon.
102.
Kathleen | February 16, 2011 at 7:19 am
UPDATE Perry:
Request for cert granted http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/cas…
103.
Kerri | February 16, 2011 at 7:21 am
Marriage Equality is VERY important to me and my wife. The effects of Prop 8 run very deep … however I am super happy that we are at least hearing some news and the case is progressing.
My wife and I are one of the 18,000 married couples in CA. The very thought of it being taken away is horrifying , but the thought of the ENTIRE State having the same opportunities and equality as anyone else is ELATING!!!
104.
John | February 16, 2011 at 7:25 am
ARGH. September???!!! To hear arguments??!!!
And more months to decide.
Then it has to go back to the Feds. So we're not going to hear until 2012 most likely, right?
105.
Kerri | February 16, 2011 at 7:26 am
probably.
106.
Kathleen | February 16, 2011 at 7:26 am
Read the last entry on the page at the link above. I'm looking for a copy of the order to upload to Scribd, but I don't think it will say anything that isn't in the docket entry.
The schedule has all briefing completed by May 9. The schedule intends to have oral arguments by Sept, but doesn't indicate if it's possible any sooner.
107.
fiona64 | February 16, 2011 at 7:31 am
::sigh::
Love,
Fiona (who is not feeling well at all and has called off from her animal shelter volunteer shift for the night)
108.
James Tuttle | February 16, 2011 at 7:31 am
More waiting. I suppose that is what I should have expected at this point.
109.
John | February 16, 2011 at 7:37 am
Justice delayed is justice denied.
110.
Steven | February 16, 2011 at 7:38 am
or in June…….
111.
Straight Dave | February 16, 2011 at 7:40 am
One more step, but this has become a 9+ month detour to answer 2 goddamn questions. I hopeOlsen&Boise ask the 9th to lift their stay. I doubt it will succeed, just because the courts seem to have no sense of humanity at times. If they followed the proper rules for a stay, it would be a no-brainer. I always thought they imposed their initial stay way too casually, like it was no big deal. There is no case to be made for anyone being harmed by lifting the stay.
rant off. time to go home.
112.
John D | February 16, 2011 at 7:40 am
JoeMyGod has a tweet from the Advocate reporting that the CA Supreme Court will be having a hearing on the issue with an expedited schedule. Opening briefs due on March 14.
113.
bJason | February 16, 2011 at 7:41 am
It sucks that they are taking up this question. However, it is HUGE with respect to CA law. I think. I predict hundreds of Amici (?) weighing in on the issue of initiative proponent's rights in general.
The crappy thing is that, regardless of their answer, the 9th Circuit will still have to decide if proponents have Federal Article III standing. What CaSC has to say about it will be informative, at best – IIRC (IANAL).
114.
kat | February 16, 2011 at 7:41 am
Michael, I understand that thinking but for our family the chance to marry now and not wait for more litigation makes us a little impatient. My daughter and her fiancée have set the date for their wedding for September and it would be really nice for their marriage to be legal from the beginning.
115.
Kathleen | February 16, 2011 at 7:51 am
All that information is in the docket entry at the Court's website (see link above)
116.
Steven | February 16, 2011 at 8:17 am
I read this from LA TIMES..
Both conservative and liberal groups are expected to urge the California court to rule that backers of ballot measures have authority, or “standing,” to defend them. Such a ruling would pave the way for a 9th Circuit decision on Proposition 8’s constitutionality, which likely would go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and have national impact.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/02/cal…
Whoever wrote that is totally wrong.
117.
Steven | February 16, 2011 at 8:18 am
September is 7 months away
118.
Sagesse | February 16, 2011 at 10:20 am
Subscribing.
119.
JonT | February 16, 2011 at 11:20 am
'Justice delayed is justice denied.'
I was about to post the exact same thing.
I think I am getting used to waiting now.
120.
Carpool Cookie | February 16, 2011 at 2:06 pm
I saw the word "I" at the beginning…it probably has something to do with him, or his views, I'm thinking.
Then I got tired of beginning to read OTHER people's stuff, and decided to jump right into posting : )
Aaaahhhhhhh….all better.
121.
Carpool Cookie | February 16, 2011 at 2:08 pm
I like Lexapro. Just sayin' : )
122.
Richard A. Jernigan | February 16, 2011 at 2:26 pm
I just posted a comment on there. I don't know if it will make it past the review, and I truly wish there were a greater length because I did not get to say everything I needed to say.
123.
Ann S. | February 17, 2011 at 12:58 am
sub-subscribing.
124.
Ronnie | February 17, 2011 at 6:02 am
Gorgeous….She adds lip gloss at the end…I LOVE IT!!!….<3…Ronnie
Leave a Comment
XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.