Courts now denying Democracy.

[RetiredGySgt]

The Federal Judge that struck down Gay marriage ban AMENDMENT has stated that no one but the State of California has the right to appeal the ban. The Governor and the Attorney General both refuse to do so.

Unfucking believable.


We have a court illegally denying the citizens the Democratic process through the Courts. We have a Governor and an Attorney General refusing to do their obligated duty for the people of the State.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

Time for another recall of a California Governor.

 

[martybegan]

The Federal Judge that struck down Gay marriage ban AMENDMENT has stated that no one but the State of California has the right to appeal the ban. The Governor and the Attorney General both refuse to do so.

Unfucking believable.


We have a court illegally denying the citizens the Democratic process through the Courts. We have a Governor and an Attorney General refusing to do their obligated duty for the people of the State.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

Time for another recall of a California Governor.

Maybe they need to sue the Attorney General directly to force him to appeal, as the Proposition is technically "the will of the people." That may be a better avenue.

Can the AG even legally refuse to enforce or fight for a law he does not agree with without forfieting his position?

 

[bodecea]

The Federal Judge that struck down Gay marriage ban AMENDMENT has stated that no one but the State of California has the right to appeal the ban. The Governor and the Attorney General both refuse to do so.

Unfucking believable.


We have a court illegally denying the citizens the Democratic process through the Courts. We have a Governor and an Attorney General refusing to do their obligated duty for the people of the State.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

Time for another recall of a California Governor.

Cry us a river.

 

[Truthmatters]

How sad you cant get any help in keeping rights from Americans

 

[goldcatt]

The Federal Judge that struck down Gay marriage ban AMENDMENT has stated that no one but the State of California has the right to appeal the ban. The Governor and the Attorney General both refuse to do so.

Unfucking believable.


We have a court illegally denying the citizens the Democratic process through the Courts. We have a Governor and an Attorney General refusing to do their obligated duty for the people of the State.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

Time for another recall of a California Governor.

Maybe they need to sue the Attorney General directly to force him to appeal, as the Proposition is technically "the will of the people." That may be a better avenue.

Can the AG even legally refuse to enforce or fight for a law he does not agree with without forfieting his position?

Appeals aren't mandatory. Perhaps the State simply decided not to spend the time and money.

 

[martybegan]

The Federal Judge that struck down Gay marriage ban AMENDMENT has stated that no one but the State of California has the right to appeal the ban. The Governor and the Attorney General both refuse to do so.

Unfucking believable.


We have a court illegally denying the citizens the Democratic process through the Courts. We have a Governor and an Attorney General refusing to do their obligated duty for the people of the State.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

Time for another recall of a California Governor.

Maybe they need to sue the Attorney General directly to force him to appeal, as the Proposition is technically "the will of the people." That may be a better avenue.

Can the AG even legally refuse to enforce or fight for a law he does not agree with without forfieting his position?

Appeals aren't mandatory. Perhaps the State simply decided not to spend the time and money.

My concern is that this will not settle the issue. By denying the right to appeal and to have the case wind its way to the supreme court you still leave the question up in the air.

The amendment was passed by direct democracy, it was added to the constitution of the state. Yes the court found it in violation of the US constiution, but as an agent of the state isn't the AG duty bound to plead the will of the people of the state, regardless of his own personal beleifs.

At a minimum there should be some mechanism for the AG to transfer the appeals to another party. Again this will allow the case to continue and for it to be settled by the supreme court.

 

[goldcatt]

Maybe they need to sue the Attorney General directly to force him to appeal, as the Proposition is technically "the will of the people." That may be a better avenue.

Can the AG even legally refuse to enforce or fight for a law he does not agree with without forfieting his position?

Appeals aren't mandatory. Perhaps the State simply decided not to spend the time and money.

My concern is that this will not settle the issue. By denying the right to appeal and to have the case wind its way to the supreme court you still leave the question up in the air.

The amendment was passed by direct democracy, it was added to the constitution of the state. Yes the court found it in violation of the US constiution, but as an agent of the state isn't the AG duty bound to plead the will of the people of the state, regardless of his own personal beleifs.

At a minimum there should be some mechanism for the AG to transfer the appeals to another party. Again this will allow the case to continue and for it to be settled by the supreme court.

Who's denying the right to appeal? Not the Court. But only the losing party has standing to bring an appeal, and they are choosing not to. It's that simple.

You're right in that it won't settle the issue once and for all, but that's the CA AG's choice to make.

Maybe they just believe they have bigger things to deal with than spending millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on the three-ring circus this would inevitably turn out to be. I know with their problems it would make me think twice.

 

[rdean]

Vote on Civil rights? We don't do that in this country. At least we're not supposed to.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Federal Judge that struck down Gay marriage ban AMENDMENT has stated that no one but the State of California has the right to appeal the ban. The Governor and the Attorney General both refuse to do so.

Unfucking believable.


We have a court illegally denying the citizens the Democratic process through the Courts. We have a Governor and an Attorney General refusing to do their obligated duty for the people of the State.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

Time for another recall of a California Governor.

Before you become more hysterical, consider:

STANDING
The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.

In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx's declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).

Standing is founded "in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society. " Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.' " Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.

Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief "must show a very significant possibility' of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit." Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).

 

[goldcatt]

The Federal Judge that struck down Gay marriage ban AMENDMENT has stated that no one but the State of California has the right to appeal the ban. The Governor and the Attorney General both refuse to do so.

Unfucking believable.


We have a court illegally denying the citizens the Democratic process through the Courts. We have a Governor and an Attorney General refusing to do their obligated duty for the people of the State.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

Time for another recall of a California Governor.

Before you become more hysterical, consider:

STANDING
The legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.There are three requirements for Article III standing: (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury fairly can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means that the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements. Id.

In deciding whether xxx has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in xxx's declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing. See Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth). see also Warth, 422 U.S. at 501 (when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing).

Standing is founded "in concern about the proper--and properly limited--role of the courts in a democratic society. " Warth, 422 U.S. at 498. When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for `concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.' " Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.

Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief "must show a very significant possibility' of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit." Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).

Bingo.

Don't forget the State of CA was the defendant in this case. They were challenged, they defended, they lost, for whatever reason they are not choosing to exercise their right to appeal. That case is over.

Prop 8 supporters can (and very well might) start over again with another intiative or other means to force another case, but perhaps unfortunately this one is in the books and done. It would have been interesting to see if there would have been a final resolution to the question down the line. But...it is what it is.

 

[martybegan]

Appeals aren't mandatory. Perhaps the State simply decided not to spend the time and money.

My concern is that this will not settle the issue. By denying the right to appeal and to have the case wind its way to the supreme court you still leave the question up in the air.

The amendment was passed by direct democracy, it was added to the constitution of the state. Yes the court found it in violation of the US constiution, but as an agent of the state isn't the AG duty bound to plead the will of the people of the state, regardless of his own personal beleifs.

At a minimum there should be some mechanism for the AG to transfer the appeals to another party. Again this will allow the case to continue and for it to be settled by the supreme court.

Who's denying the right to appeal? Not the Court. But only the losing party has standing to bring an appeal, and they are choosing not to. It's that simple.

You're right in that it won't settle the issue once and for all, but that's the CA AG's choice to make.

Maybe they just believe they have bigger things to deal with than spending millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on the three-ring circus this would inevitably turn out to be. I know with their problems it would make me think twice.

By perception the court is. If the AG refuses to persue, the court is speculating that no other appeal is warranted, even though the court itself was the one that allowed a third party to present the defense's case.

This will play right into the hands of the supporters of prop 8, they then get to argue judical mechanics the (overreaching liberal court system) instead of the actual merits of the debate. Its a short term victory for the anti prop-8 side, that in my opinion is short sighted. Let them appeal and get it to the supreme court. That will, short of an amendment, decide the issue in a more final way.

 

[goldcatt]

My concern is that this will not settle the issue. By denying the right to appeal and to have the case wind its way to the supreme court you still leave the question up in the air.

The amendment was passed by direct democracy, it was added to the constitution of the state. Yes the court found it in violation of the US constiution, but as an agent of the state isn't the AG duty bound to plead the will of the people of the state, regardless of his own personal beleifs.

At a minimum there should be some mechanism for the AG to transfer the appeals to another party. Again this will allow the case to continue and for it to be settled by the supreme court.

Who's denying the right to appeal? Not the Court. But only the losing party has standing to bring an appeal, and they are choosing not to. It's that simple.

You're right in that it won't settle the issue once and for all, but that's the CA AG's choice to make.

Maybe they just believe they have bigger things to deal with than spending millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on the three-ring circus this would inevitably turn out to be. I know with their problems it would make me think twice.

By perception the court is. If the AG refuses to persue, the court is speculating that no other appeal is warranted, even though the court itself was the one that allowed a third party to present the defense's case.

This will play right into the hands of the supporters of prop 8, they then get to argue judical mechanics the (overreaching liberal court system) instead of the actual merits of the debate. Its a short term victory for the anti prop-8 side, that in my opinion is short sighted. Let them appeal and get it to the supreme court. That will, short of an amendment, decide the issue in a more final way.

A third party who was acting as an agent of the State, on their behalf and with their authority. That isn't unusual. Do you really think the AG has time to handle it all by himself, or with his staff, and still meet his other obligations?

Standing doctrine and Article 3 jurisdiction are pre-existing rules that far outweigh perception in this case. Sorry, but I simply have no sympathy. The process is the process, to do anything but follow it is to create exactly the kind of special treatment Prop 8 proponents claim they don't want. They probably could have leaned harder on the AG's Office, but I have my suspicions it wouldn't have done much good.

And at the risk of derailing the thread, if the blowdried talking heads in the media on any side cared enough to understand what they were talking about or get the facts straight they wouldn't be blowing it out of proportion to create that perception in the first place. But don't get me started on the incompetence and sheer boobery of the media in general, I'll be on my soapbox all day.

 

[martybegan]

Who's denying the right to appeal? Not the Court. But only the losing party has standing to bring an appeal, and they are choosing not to. It's that simple.

You're right in that it won't settle the issue once and for all, but that's the CA AG's choice to make.

Maybe they just believe they have bigger things to deal with than spending millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on the three-ring circus this would inevitably turn out to be. I know with their problems it would make me think twice.

By perception the court is. If the AG refuses to persue, the court is speculating that no other appeal is warranted, even though the court itself was the one that allowed a third party to present the defense's case.

This will play right into the hands of the supporters of prop 8, they then get to argue judical mechanics the (overreaching liberal court system) instead of the actual merits of the debate. Its a short term victory for the anti prop-8 side, that in my opinion is short sighted. Let them appeal and get it to the supreme court. That will, short of an amendment, decide the issue in a more final way.

A third party who was acting as an agent of the State, on their behalf and with their authority. That isn't unusual. Do you really think the AG has time to handle it all by himself, or with his staff, and still meet his other obligations?

Standing doctrine and Article 3 jurisdiction are pre-existing rules that far outweigh perception in this case. Sorry, but I simply have no sympathy. The process is the process, to do anything but follow it is to create exactly the kind of special treatment Prop 8 proponents claim they don't want. They probably could have leaned harder on the AG's Office, but I have my suspicions it wouldn't have done much good.

And at the risk of derailing the thread, if the blowdried talking heads in the media on any side cared enough to understand what they were talking about or get the facts straight they wouldn't be blowing it out of proportion to create that perception in the first place. But don't get me started on the incompetence and sheer boobery of the media in general, I'll be on my soapbox all day.

Don't worry about derailing, Ive already turned a fear mongering republicans thread into a global warming kerfluffle.

So lets look at the point of why the AG will not appeal, and again let the third party handle the leg work. Why did they let it happen at the first level, and not later ones?

 

[goldcatt]

By perception the court is. If the AG refuses to persue, the court is speculating that no other appeal is warranted, even though the court itself was the one that allowed a third party to present the defense's case.

This will play right into the hands of the supporters of prop 8, they then get to argue judical mechanics the (overreaching liberal court system) instead of the actual merits of the debate. Its a short term victory for the anti prop-8 side, that in my opinion is short sighted. Let them appeal and get it to the supreme court. That will, short of an amendment, decide the issue in a more final way.

A third party who was acting as an agent of the State, on their behalf and with their authority. That isn't unusual. Do you really think the AG has time to handle it all by himself, or with his staff, and still meet his other obligations?

Standing doctrine and Article 3 jurisdiction are pre-existing rules that far outweigh perception in this case. Sorry, but I simply have no sympathy. The process is the process, to do anything but follow it is to create exactly the kind of special treatment Prop 8 proponents claim they don't want. They probably could have leaned harder on the AG's Office, but I have my suspicions it wouldn't have done much good.

And at the risk of derailing the thread, if the blowdried talking heads in the media on any side cared enough to understand what they were talking about or get the facts straight they wouldn't be blowing it out of proportion to create that perception in the first place. But don't get me started on the incompetence and sheer boobery of the media in general, I'll be on my soapbox all day.

Don't worry about derailing, Ive already turned a fear mongering republicans thread into a global warming kerfluffle.

So lets look at the point of why the AG will not appeal, and again let the third party handle the leg work. Why did they let it happen at the first level, and not later ones?

As far as I know they haven't released their reason, so it's all speculation. But I can tell you a Federal appeal, whether it's through the AG's office or farmed out, is a long, expensive and incredibly time-consuming process. Especially in such a high profile case. We really are talking millions of dollars and thousands of man hours. It's not something to be done on a whim, or with a case you don't think is solid. Especially not with taxpayer money.

Let's be realistic, the Governor's office was never all that crazy about Prop 8 to begin with. They defended it and spent the time and money on it at the trial level, perhaps they are of the opinion it's a losing battle and throwing good money after bad to go on. Or they simply don't want to for political reasons. If I feel like being completely cynical I could see certain elements of the partisan bomb squad leaning on them to choose not to pursue a final outcome as well, it would be against their interests to settle an issue that raises so much cash. Who knows?

The point is, it's their prerogative. I can't say I don't agree with you on some level, I'd like to see the whole thing resolved once and for all and we can get one of the wedge diversions off the table. But it's not my call.

ETA: I think I answered a slightly different question than what you asked. There is no reason to think an appeal if it happened would be handled any differently than the trial was as far as using a third party attorney to argue it. But the trial attorney is the agent, the AG is the principal, and the principal makes the decisions. Why he chose to use an outside firm is also speculative, but as I said it's not uncommon and is usually a matter of either expertise or resources.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Federal Judge that struck down Gay marriage ban AMENDMENT has stated that no one but the State of California has the right to appeal the ban. The Governor and the Attorney General both refuse to do so.

Unfucking believable.


We have a court illegally denying the citizens the Democratic process through the Courts. We have a Governor and an Attorney General refusing to do their obligated duty for the people of the State.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

Time for another recall of a California Governor.

If that portion of the ruling stands then he has just insured no one will ever review his decision. Nice way to make law by decree that is not subject to review.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How sad you cant get any help in keeping rights from Americans

This ruling, if it stands, would set a precedent for judges to order states to violate civil rights. One thing liberals often forget is precedent works both for and against them when the create now judicial powers. How do you think Congress is chipping away at the sacred right to an abortion? Because liberal precedents allow Congress to declare almost anything to be within their power by sticking a commerce clause label on it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Appeals aren't mandatory. Perhaps the State simply decided not to spend the time and money.

My concern is that this will not settle the issue. By denying the right to appeal and to have the case wind its way to the supreme court you still leave the question up in the air.

The amendment was passed by direct democracy, it was added to the constitution of the state. Yes the court found it in violation of the US constiution, but as an agent of the state isn't the AG duty bound to plead the will of the people of the state, regardless of his own personal beleifs.

At a minimum there should be some mechanism for the AG to transfer the appeals to another party. Again this will allow the case to continue and for it to be settled by the supreme court.

Who's denying the right to appeal? Not the Court. But only the losing party has standing to bring an appeal, and they are choosing not to. It's that simple.

You're right in that it won't settle the issue once and for all, but that's the CA AG's choice to make.

Maybe they just believe they have bigger things to deal with than spending millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on the three-ring circus this would inevitably turn out to be. I know with their problems it would make me think twice.

The state did not defend the proposition in the first place, the backers did. This ruling is essentially saying that the people who lost the case cannot appeal it, even though they were originally a party to the case.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I understand the concept of standing, but I think the talking heads are wrong. The people of the State of California voted on this, and they are being harmed because their vote is being thrown out. They have just as much standing to appeal the decision as the state does, because they will have to pay more in taxes, or do without other services, as a result of this decision. If the state has standing to appeal the decision, then the people themselves do if their government elects to ignore them.

 

[goldcatt]

My concern is that this will not settle the issue. By denying the right to appeal and to have the case wind its way to the supreme court you still leave the question up in the air.

The amendment was passed by direct democracy, it was added to the constitution of the state. Yes the court found it in violation of the US constiution, but as an agent of the state isn't the AG duty bound to plead the will of the people of the state, regardless of his own personal beleifs.

At a minimum there should be some mechanism for the AG to transfer the appeals to another party. Again this will allow the case to continue and for it to be settled by the supreme court.

Who's denying the right to appeal? Not the Court. But only the losing party has standing to bring an appeal, and they are choosing not to. It's that simple.

You're right in that it won't settle the issue once and for all, but that's the CA AG's choice to make.

Maybe they just believe they have bigger things to deal with than spending millions of dollars and thousands of man hours on the three-ring circus this would inevitably turn out to be. I know with their problems it would make me think twice.

The state did not defend the proposition in the first place, the backers did. This ruling is essentially saying that the people who lost the case cannot appeal it, even though they were originally a party to the case.

Back up a minute. What, precisely, was the ruling?

To lift the stay. Why?

Because the stay was in place pending appeal. The party who was sued and lost, the State of California, is not pursuing an appeal. Therefore there is no reason for the stay.

The statement on standing is a matter of well-settled law, not any new precedent or order. That just is what it is.

What other groups could possibly be party to or have standing to appeal a Federal constitutional challenge to a portion of the constitution of the State of California? It is the law of the State, the State has the burden of defending...or choosing not to.

I think a lot of you are confusing the process by which the CA constitution was amended with the end result. Once a law is a law, it doesn't matter how it was made. It is law. Period. And it belongs to the State whether it is a legslative act or was done by ballot initiative. One is not more significant if challenged than the other.

Truly disregarding the vote would not have been overturning it, it would have been declaring it void as though it had never been. By acknowledging it as law and treating it the same as any other law, the Court was exactly correct. Don't mix your before and after here.

Like I said, I'd like to see this move forward too. I suspect the reason it isn't is part financial, part logistical and part political, but whatever it is the State is under no obligation to appeal. I'm not sure they still can now anyway. What was the date of the decision? Has the filing period passed? I'm horrible with dates.

 

[jillian]

The Federal Judge that struck down Gay marriage ban AMENDMENT has stated that no one but the State of California has the right to appeal the ban. The Governor and the Attorney General both refuse to do so.

Unfucking believable.


We have a court illegally denying the citizens the Democratic process through the Courts. We have a Governor and an Attorney General refusing to do their obligated duty for the people of the State.

Judge doubts gay marriage ban's backers can appeal - Yahoo! News

Time for another recall of a California Governor.

what idiocy... what possible damage can they allege?

and since when are rights subject to a vote?

but nice to make the judiciary sound like some usurper for DOING ITS JOB!