I thought we needed something else to argue about.

[Quantum Windbag]

Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: 9th Circuit Grants Stay Pending Appeal in Prop. 8 Case


It seems that same sex marriage is going to have to wait until after the 9th hears the case after all.

 

[syrenn]

You now and i know that his is going all the way to Supreme court.

 

[Madeline]

I think the 9th made the right decision. Allowing people to marry under a decision on appeal like this would create a cloud on the title to real property, etc. The confusion would last for years....better that people should wait a few more months and get clearance.

I think the 9th will affirm and the Gang of Nine will decline to take up the case. (Or else the 9th will dismiss for lack of standing...not a very satisfactory end to the proceedings.)

What say you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: 9th Circuit Grants Stay Pending Appeal in Prop. 8 Case


It seems that same sex marriage is going to have to wait until after the 9th hears the case after all.

Wow! Sort of. The case has some credibility as far as being argued and won by either side. If it weren't, if the appellate court had thought the anti-gay marriage folks had no chance of winning, they would have kept the injunction against prop 8.

The prop 8 people still have a long way to go. Their own experts sunk them during the federal court case. They'd better have a plan B or they are going to lose before they even know it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think the 9th made the right decision. Allowing people to marry under a decision on appeal like this would create a cloud on the title to real property, etc. The confusion would last for years....better that people should wait a few more months and get clearance.

I think the 9th will affirm and the Gang of Nine will decline to take up the case. (Or else the 9th will dismiss for lack of standing...not a very satisfactory end to the proceedings.)

What say you?

If the 9th dismisses for lack of standing they might also have to vacate the decision and order the case back to the court to be reheard. If the parties do not have standing to appeal then they also did not have standing to bring the original case. That might make thing really interesting.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Federal panel puts same-sex marriage on hold as appeal of Prop. 8 ruling goes forward

The decision by three judges from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upsets gay couples in California who had hoped to wed this week. But a legal expert says the ruling could be a strategic victory for Prop. 8 opponents.

Gay marriage: Federal panel puts same-sex marriage on hold as appeal of Prop. 8 ruling goes forward - latimes.com

The brief order by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals prevents an early showdown on the marriage question at the U.S. Supreme Court. Challengers of the marriage ban said they would not appeal Monday's order.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think the 9th made the right decision. Allowing people to marry under a decision on appeal like this would create a cloud on the title to real property, etc. The confusion would last for years....better that people should wait a few more months and get clearance.

I think the 9th will affirm and the Gang of Nine will decline to take up the case. (Or else the 9th will dismiss for lack of standing...not a very satisfactory end to the proceedings.)

What say you?

enough with your obnoxious font!!!!!


you are a moron.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think the 9th made the right decision. Allowing people to marry under a decision on appeal like this would create a cloud on the title to real property, etc. The confusion would last for years....better that people should wait a few more months and get clearance.

I think the 9th will affirm and the Gang of Nine will decline to take up the case. (Or else the 9th will dismiss for lack of standing...not a very satisfactory end to the proceedings.)

What say you?

If the 9th dismisses for lack of standing they might also have to vacate the decision and order the case back to the court to be reheard. If the parties do not have standing to appeal then they also did not have standing to bring the original case. That might make thing really interesting.

when you reply to madeline-twat, can you lower the font?

 

[goldcatt]

Sua sponte in the 9th?

I wouldn't hold your breath it will be heard past the AIII issue. But they're doing the right thing, IMO.

 

[Madeline]

I'm not so sure. The standing of the plaintiffs in District Court is on solid ground. When the CA Attorney General declined to participate, you could say (though obviously it is not quite accurate) that the opponents of Prop 8 took a default judgment against the state.

Allowing this Family Counsel Group (sorry, couldn't figure out the name), who had to file in District Court as a "friend of the court" to take the appeal when the state did not grants them party status, perhaps improperly.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You now and i know that his is going all the way to Supreme court.

but what the fed court and the appellate court says and what arguments are presented matters a lot. it may end up with the Supreme Court sending it back and upholding the fed court.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm not so sure. The standing of the plaintiffs in District Court is on solid ground. When the CA Attorney General declined to participate, you could say (though obviously it is not quite accurate) that the opponents of Prop 8 took a default judgment against the state.

Allowing this Family Counsel Group (sorry, couldn't figure out the name), who had to file in District Court as a "friend of the court" to take the appeal when the state did not grants them party status, perhaps improperly.

please, I can't hear what others are saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



what is wrong with you?



do you know what your font looks like to other people?



what is wrong with you?

 

[Madeline]

Dante, you are an idiot. I am placing you on "ignore" and I suggest you do me the same way.

 

[goldcatt]

I'm not so sure. The standing of the plaintiffs in District Court is on solid ground. When the CA Attorney General declined to participate, you could say (though obviously it is not quite accurate) that the opponents of Prop 8 took a default judgment against the state.

Allowing this Family Counsel Group (sorry, couldn't figure out the name), who had to file in District Court as a "friend of the court" to take the appeal when the state did not grants them party status, perhaps improperly.

I don't think the District Court's ruling was improper at all. It's an Article III question, and the Federal Courts don't do declaratory judgments. Cases and controversies. What can the Court order this advocacy group to do with regards to the Constitution of the State of California?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1014/fontwhore.jpg

I don't read your obnoxious PMs either!!!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante, you are an idiot. I am placing you on "ignore" and I suggest you do me the same way.

Dante, you are an idiot. I am placing you on "ignore" and I suggest you do me the same way.

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/1014/fontwhore.jpg

I don't read your obnoxious PMs either!!!!!




enough with your obnoxious font!!!!!


you are a moron.



please, I can't hear what others are saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



what is wrong with you?



do you know what your font looks like to other people?



what is wrong with you?

 

[Madeline]

I'm not so sure. The standing of the plaintiffs in District Court is on solid ground. When the CA Attorney General declined to participate, you could say (though obviously it is not quite accurate) that the opponents of Prop 8 took a default judgment against the state.

Allowing this Family Counsel Group (sorry, couldn't figure out the name), who had to file in District Court as a "friend of the court" to take the appeal when the state did not grants them party status, perhaps improperly.

I don't think the District Court's ruling was improper at all. It's an Article III question, and the Federal Courts don't do declaratory judgments. Cases and controversies. What can the Court order this advocacy group to do with regards to the Constitution of the State of California?

Well now I am confused. I have read this three times, goldcatt. Ain't we saying the same thing?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'm not so sure. The standing of the plaintiffs in District Court is on solid ground. When the CA Attorney General declined to participate, you could say (though obviously it is not quite accurate) that the opponents of Prop 8 took a default judgment against the state.

Allowing this Family Counsel Group (sorry, couldn't figure out the name), who had to file in District Court as a "friend of the court" to take the appeal when the state did not grants them party status, perhaps improperly.

I don't think the District Court's ruling was improper at all. It's an Article III question, and the Federal Courts don't do declaratory judgments. Cases and controversies. What can the Court order this advocacy group to do with regards to the Constitution of the State of California?

Well now I am confused. I have read this three times, goldcatt. Ain't we saying the same thing?

It's difficult to hear what somebody is saying if they keep yelling a blue streak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well now I am confused.

no wonder. what with all the noise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!