the hypocrites on the SC were fine with a private individual challenging the constitution under the fraud induced ex parte young provision, but they say the above when "private" individuals challenged the challenge.
the so-called "private" individuals in the prop 8 case where authorized to defend the law by the Republic of California itself. They were acting as the/in the place of government officials who had shirked their duty.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Unsurprisingly.
The issue has nothing to do with 'challenging the Constitution,' which doesn't even make any sense.
The issue concerned private citizens seeking to defend a state law challenged by private citizens who were injured by that law. Only officers of the state may defend a state law from a legal challenge, not private citizens, and the Court reaffirmed that settled and accepted doctrine in Perry:
The Article III requirement that a party invoking the jurisdiction of a federal court seek relief for a personal, particularized injury serves vital interests going to the role of the Judiciary in our system of separated powers. “Refusing to entertain generalized grievances ensures that . . . courts exercise power that is judicial in nature,” Lance, 549 U. S., at 441, and ensures that the Federal Judiciary respects “the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society,” DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 341 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). States cannot alter that role simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse.
We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.
HOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY | LII / Legal Information Institute
u must be a lawyer...you know damn well what i meant by challenging the constitution. tho it was poorly worded on my part. Challenging the law in a federal court.
The court,..and your, "reasoning" here is just bull shit. The state of California should have been notified of this idiotic idea from the federal government then when they (California) passed the law saying "private" parties could do this (defend the law) because it left the people of the whole state with the wrong impression. The ruling however violates the part of the constitution that guarantees to each state a Republican form of government. It hides behind some "we have never before"crap ......well maybe they should have before...they certainly should have upheld it here in this case.
they are also using logic meant to limit the courts power.....to expand the courts power. It is typical lawyers bullshit.......
The Supreme idiots say states cant "simply by issuing to private parties who otherwise lack standing a ticket to the federal courthouse."
While they did the same thing in ex parte young as a favor to railroad corporations. However who better than a whole state, representing a whole people to issue to a "private party" a ticket to a courthouse when their own officials have shirked their duty under their own state constitution? The "private party" was doing the duty of a state official.
THis was a very damaging ruling to the heart of the ideals of our Republican system. One that Scalia and the like are most likely gloating over. It was very short-sighted for the gay community to bring it to court...and to celebrate it now. And it is equally short-sighted to keep pushing this subject in the federal courts.
