Fascists Leaders in California Sense The Future: Attempt Another Coup on Democracy

[JakeStarkey]

dcraelin, you would do yourself much good if you would listen to those who know much better than you. The far right reactionary RINOs of the GOP are an illiterate group when it comes to American republicanism, democracy, and law. The Cali lege is fully within its scope to gut the dead intent of a referendum.

 

[Silhouette]

dcraelin, you would do yourself much good if you would listen to those who know much better than you. The far right reactionary RINOs of the GOP are an illiterate group when it comes to American republicanism, democracy, and law. The Cali lege is fully within its scope to gut the dead intent of a referendum.

Yes..dont pay attention to silly written laws that protect & preserve democracy, like CA's constitution's Article II, Section 10 (c). Just shut your mouth..mind your manners [or else..] & sit quietly while "experts" like Jake here assure you their demolition of your civil rights & protections to govern yourselves [CA's constitution's Article II, Section 10 (c)] to forward the LGBT cult-agenda "will only be just this one time"...

Remember..."They" know "much better than you" how "democracy" works...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, pay attention to SCOTUS, pay attention to more than 20 court decisions, pay attention that nearly 20 states have marriage equality without detriment to society including the children.

Sil and the ilk would destroy civil rights based on their dislike of same sex behavior.

No one with a thinking mind really worries about their yelling.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, pay attention to SCOTUS, pay attention to more than 20 court decisions, pay attention that nearly 20 states have marriage equality without detriment to society including the children.

Sil and the ilk would destroy civil rights based on their dislike of same sex behavior.

No one with a thinking mind really worries about their yelling.

You mean last week where they just granted Utah's statute [& Prop 8 by legal extrapolation] validity-in-interim pending appeal? Or the Windsor 2013 State-Voter's Choice constitutional Finding of the operative process on how gay marriage becomes legal or not?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, pay attention to SCOTUS, pay attention to more than 20 court decisions, pay attention that nearly 20 states have marriage equality without detriment to society including the children.

Sil and the ilk would destroy civil rights based on their dislike of same sex behavior.

No one with a thinking mind really worries about their yelling.

You mean last week where they just granted Utah's statute [& Prop 8 by legal extrapolation] validity-in-interim pending appeal? Or the Windsor 2013 State-Voter's Choice constitutional Finding of the operative process on how gay marriage becomes legal or not?

Your reading of Windsor is mistaken, deliberately so, wrenched out of context, as it has been pointed out time and time again on the Board.

Roberts has given Sotomayor control of the appellate process administratively. She has directed stays where reasonable so that when SCOTUS rules it will be able to rule marriage equality is the law of the land.

 

[Silhouette]

Your reading of Windsor is mistaken, deliberately so, wrenched out of context, as it has been pointed out time and time again on the Board.

Roberts has given Sotomayor control of the appellate process administratively. She has directed stays where reasonable so that when SCOTUS rules it will be able to rule marriage equality is the law of the land.

United States v. Windsor (DOMA)

If folks read the entire context of full 10 solid pages [14-24] of the Opinion of Windsor 2013, the conclusion is, along with SCOTUS' July 2014 Upholding-in-interim of Utah's same voter-statute, that Prop 8 is valid interim-law. Will you argue for CA's sedition next by hoping the readers here are too stupid to know SCOTUS Rulings' intent applies equally across all 50 sates as to the same legal question of this family/marriage law?

Why do Utah voters have more interim-power of self-governance via their votes than Californian's do..according to SCOTUS? Just as an argument is foolproof as to equal-application of a formal Ruling across the 50 states..so should an interim-Ruling pending appeal.

Is democracy intrinsically weaker in California than Utah in the interim? Are they less deserving to receive the same real benefits? This is the argument a single CA voter could make..with standing..on conflicting interim Rulings weakening their civil rights to democratic rule.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your reading of Windsor is mistaken, deliberately so, wrenched out of context, as it has been pointed out time and time again on the Board.

Roberts has given Sotomayor control of the appellate process administratively. She has directed stays where reasonable so that when SCOTUS rules it will be able to rule marriage equality is the law of the land.

United States v. Windsor (DOMA)

If folks read the entire context of full 10 solid pages [14-24] of the Opinion of Windsor 2013, the conclusion is, along with SCOTUS' July 2014 Upholding-in-interim of Utah's same voter-statute, that Prop 8 is valid interim-law. Will you argue for CA's sedition next by hoping the readers here are too stupid to know SCOTUS Rulings' intent applies equally across all 50 sates as to the same legal question of this family/marriage law?

Why do Utah voters have more interim-power of self-governance via their votes than Californian's do..according to SCOTUS? Just as an argument is foolproof as to equal-application of a formal Ruling across the 50 states..so should an interim-Ruling pending appeal.

Is democracy intrinsically weaker in California than Utah in the interim? Are they less deserving to receive the same real benefits? This is the argument a single CA voter could make..with standing..on conflicting interim Rulings weakening their civil rights to democratic rule.

No one who understands Windsor is going to fall for you Big Lie Theory, to keep telling it until people think it is truth.

We need you to be honest with us as to the 'why' you are ignoring the facts and realities of marriage equality.

If any here on the board were abused as a child by an adult, my profound empathy: the same happened to me by a female counselor at my school. Life moves on if it is to mean something worthwhile. Continually looking over one's shoulder at the past means one mortgages the future.

In the meantime, chase all predators of children, every last one, and don't pretend that marriage equality is going to foster an ever greater opportunity for adult predation of children.

 

[Silhouette]

Your reading of Windsor is mistaken, deliberately so, wrenched out of context, as it has been pointed out time and time again on the Board.

Roberts has given Sotomayor control of the appellate process administratively. She has directed stays where reasonable so that when SCOTUS rules it will be able to rule marriage equality is the law of the land.

United States v. Windsor (DOMA)

If folks read the entire context of full 10 solid pages [14-24] of the Opinion of Windsor 2013, the conclusion is, along with SCOTUS' July 2014 Upholding-in-interim of Utah's same voter-statute, that Prop 8 is valid interim-law. Will you argue for CA's sedition next by hoping the readers here are too stupid to know SCOTUS Rulings' intent applies equally across all 50 sates as to the same legal question of this family/marriage law?

Why do Utah voters have more interim-power of self-governance via their votes than Californian's do..according to SCOTUS? Just as an argument is foolproof as to equal-application of a formal Ruling across the 50 states..so should an interim-Ruling pending appeal.

Is democracy intrinsically weaker in California than Utah in the interim? Are they less deserving to receive the same real benefits? This is the argument a single CA voter could make..with standing..on conflicting interim Rulings weakening their civil rights to democratic rule.

No one who understands Windsor is going to fall for you Big Lie Theory, to keep telling it until people think it is truth...

It's funny how projection always betrays the actual perpetrator of the named crime...

"No one who understands Windsor"? You mean people who know how to read english? There was a constitutional finding in Windsor. There is only one clause that says "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended" in Windsor. And it is nestled thick in and amongst numerous proclamations that marriage definition is in the power of the states.

That's why I call Windsor the "state's choice" Decision. The entire hinge for throwing out part of DOMA in Windsor was that the Court decided that under the question of gay marriage, whatever a state decided was what the fed had to agree to.

Now you do find references to "Loving v Virginia" once or twice, but they come with a rider of "this hasn't been determined yet". And nowhere near the scant conditional mentions of Loving v Virginia do you find the phrase: "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended".

But there it is in Windsor, right next to strong statements like "states have the unquestioned authority" when discussing who decides on gay marriage. And they didn't stop there. They made sure to include langauge that says that the broadest swath of people within a state have the ultimate authority there even. That was tantamount to Upholding Prop 8.

And of course as a lawyer, you know that. You know how to read english. You know how to follow the logic and reasoning of the Court in Windsor.

Yet you play dumb to protect seditious officials in California as they rape that constitution and the rights of the voters there to democratic rule.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil continues intransigently to accept facts and the truth of the matter.

To argue further is only to legitimize the nonsense of the far right's arguments on the Board, which have been defeated time after time after time. Since the antis have nothing of worth, they will never be permitted "just once more".

Marriage equality is inevitable. Live with it.

Unsubscribe.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil continues intransigently to accept facts and the truth of the matter.

To argue further is only to legitimize the nonsense of the far right's arguments on the Board, which have been defeated time after time after time. Since the antis have nothing of worth, they will never be permitted "just once more".

Marriage equality is inevitable. Live with it.

Unsubscribe.

Marriage equality is already a fact. Any man may marry any consenting woman and vice versa. What you want to do isn't marriage.

 

[Skylar]

But the California constitution Article II, Section 10 (c) says no initiative may be "gutted" all or in part by anyone without the voters' permission. Period. There are no exceptions. Rogue officials in CA gutting family code that is subservient to Prop 8's "one man one woman" law is SEDITION.

Nope. You don't understand what sedition means. The courts already overthrew prop 8. With the USSC refusing to overturn the federal courts ruling.

You can ignore this. But it doesn't change the fact that the enforcement of any part of Prop 8 is illegal. And that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, as determined by the federal courts.

Its not sedition to bring CA laws in line with the ruling of the federal courts.

If folks read the entire context of full 10 solid pages [14-24] of the Opinion of Windsor 2013, the conclusion is, along with SCOTUS' July 2014 Upholding-in-interim of Utah's same voter-statute, that Prop 8 is valid interim-law. Will you argue for CA's sedition next by hoping the readers here are too stupid to know SCOTUS Rulings' intent applies equally across all 50 sates as to the same legal question of this family/marriage law?

Windsor doesn't involve Prop 8, nor ever mentions it or the State of California. You're again insisting that CA legislators abide a federal ruling regarding Prop 8 that simply doesn't exist.....but you imagine will. Someday. Unless it doesn't.

Um, no.

Your imagination is irrelevant. Just like your made up version of 'sedition' is irrelevant.

 

[Silhouette]

..You don't understand what sedition means. The courts already overthrew prop 8. With the USSC refusing to overturn the federal courts ruling.

You can ignore this. But it doesn't change the fact that the enforcement of any part of Prop 8 is illegal. And that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, as determined by the federal courts.

Its not sedition to bring CA laws in line with the ruling of the federal courts...

If it is not sedition to bring CA laws in line with the ruling of the federal courts, then it IS sedition to NOT bring CA laws in line with the ruling of the federal courts.

Now then...

You are aware I take it that Utah's AG just asked for a stay on gay marriage from SCOTUS and won it on the argument that his legally-enacted state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman [identical to Prop 8] was valid-in-interim. And that to deny its validity was to harm the power of his People to govern themselves....?

Since we know that a federal Decision that affects an ultimate ruling that will affect all 50 states [as all these gay marriage appeals will do], how is it that just one, two or five states get a federal grace of protection for their voters' civil right to self-govern while other states' voters do not in the interim?

How can we have two conflicting statuses for man/woman marriage as enacted by a state's consensus at the SCOTUS level? If SCOTUS acted on that question to protect a state's voters right to self-govern in the interim pending appeal, then that decision applies to all 50 states. Selectivism isn't allowed when applying a protection of civil rights like the right to self-govern. It's all 50 or nothing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

..You don't understand what sedition means. The courts already overthrew prop 8. With the USSC refusing to overturn the federal courts ruling.

You can ignore this. But it doesn't change the fact that the enforcement of any part of Prop 8 is illegal. And that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, as determined by the federal courts.

Its not sedition to bring CA laws in line with the ruling of the federal courts...

If it is not sedition to bring CA laws in line with the ruling of the federal courts, then it IS sedition to NOT bring CA laws in line with the ruling of the federal courts.

Now then...

You are aware I take it that Utah's AG just asked for a stay on gay marriage from SCOTUS and won it on the argument that his legally-enacted state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman [identical to Prop 8] was valid-in-interim. And that to deny its validity was to harm the power of his People to govern themselves....?

Since we know that a federal Decision that affects an ultimate ruling that will affect all 50 states [as all these gay marriage appeals will do], how is it that just one, two or five states get a federal grace of protection for their voters' civil right to self-govern while other states' voters do not in the interim?

How can we have two conflicting statuses for man/woman marriage as enacted by a state's consensus at the SCOTUS level? If SCOTUS acted on that question to protect a state's voters right to self-govern in the interim pending appeal, then that decision applies to all 50 states. Selectivism isn't allowed when applying a protection of civil rights like the right to self-govern. It's all 50 or nothing.

It' easy to have two different statuses for two different cases. You appear to be confusing issuing a stay with issuing a ruling on the case. When the SCOTUS issues a ruling on the merit's of the case, that ruling is applicable to all 50 states. When SCOTUS issues a stay (or declines to issue a stay) then that applies only to that case.

Take for example Oregon and Utah:

Utah - A stay was requested by the state in the ruling that a ban was unconstitutional was granted by the SCOTUS, therefore it applies to Utah.

Oregon - A stay was requested in the ruling that a ban was unconstitutional, the SCOTUS rejected the requested stay and therefore SSCM's because legal in Oregon becasue those with standing did not disagree and appeal the decision.​

Just because the SCOTUS issued a stay in Utah, does not mean that Oregon had to discontinue lawful SSCM's there.



>>>>

 

[Skylar]

If it is not sedition to bring CA laws in line with the ruling of the federal courts, then it IS sedition to NOT bring CA laws in line with the ruling of the federal courts.

Um....the federal court has found Prop 8 to be unconstitutional. Its illegal to enforce any part of Prop 8 in California. The issue went all the way to the USSC, which allowed the lower court ruling to stand. There are no appeals for Prop 8.

All which you already know. What you don't seem to follow is the meaning of 'sedition'. Bringing CA law into accordance with the federal judiciary's ruling on Prop 8 isn't it.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

You are aware I take it that Utah's AG just asked for a stay on gay marriage from SCOTUS and won it on the argument that his legally-enacted state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman [identical to Prop 8] was valid-in-interim.

You are aware that Prop 8 isn't part of that case? That there's no mention of California or the Prop 8 anywhere in the case you're citing? That it is literally illegal to enforce any part of Prop 8 in California per the federal judiciary?

Are you also aware that the constitutionality of Prop 8 was adjudicated in federal judiciary in 2010, and explicitly and unambiguously found to be unconstitutional?

If not, you may need to review the facts.

Since we know that a federal Decision that affects an ultimate ruling that will affect all 50 states [as all these gay marriage appeals will do], how is it that just one, two or five states get a federal grace of protection for their voters' civil right to self-govern while other states' voters do not in the interim?

And since we know that a hypothetical ruling that doesn't exist and has never been issued has no precedent or effect on the law, you are once again insisting it is 'sedition' that CA legislators aren't following a ruling....

.....that you have completely imagined. That doesn't exist. Which itself is just silly.

But while you're insisting that CA enforce your imagination, you're also actively ignoring the fact that the constitutionality of Prop 8 has already been adjudicated by the federal judiciary. And that it was found to be unconstitutional. With the USSC allowing that ruling to stand. You also know that it is illegal to enforce any portion of Prop 8 in California.

Just because you pretend that federal judiciary hasn't already ruled on the issue doesn't mean that the ruling on the issue magically changes.

Worse, you can't even apply your imaginary standards consistently. As if a hypothetical ruling that has never happened is somehow valid, then why wouldn't a hypothetical vote that has never happened be equally valid? Is there the slightest doubt in your mind that Prop 8 would be overturned in CA today if put to a vote?

Of course not. Support for gay marriage in CA is overwhelming. Yet predictably you ignore your own standards of imaginary evidence....even when the actions of CA legislators are clearly in line with the will of the people of CA, who overwhelmingly support gay marriage. Robbing your argument of even an imaginary basis of validity.

Your argument is a legally baseless, self contradictory mess that ignores actual federal rulings on Prop 8 and insists we follow imaginary rulings that have never happened instead.

Um, no.

How can we have two conflicting statuses for man/woman marriage as enacted by a state's consensus at the SCOTUS level?

The courts have never ruled that Utah's ban on gay marriage is constitutional. The courts have ruled that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

The conflict, very much like the USSC ruling where Prop 8 is found to be constitutional, is completely imaginary. As none of the cases you're citing involve Prop 8 or even mention it. Where the cases that did involve Prop 8 have explicitly and unquestioningly found it to be unenforceable abrogation of rights. A conclusion that's gone all the way to the Supreme Court and remained intact.

You've given us no reason to ignore actual federal rulings on Prop 8 in favor of your imaginary ones.

 

[Silhouette]

It' easy to have two different statuses for two different cases. You appear to be confusing issuing a stay with issuing a ruling on the case. When the SCOTUS issues a ruling on the merit's of the case, that ruling is applicable to all 50 states. When SCOTUS issues a stay (or declines to issue a stay) then that applies only to that case.

I would say that was true as long as the case involved state-insular cases only, and ones that don't involve suppressing democracy at it's core [a base violation of the most sacred civil right we all possess as equal American citizens in every state].

The cases between Utah and California [using the perfect example for this analogy] are not different AT ALL. They both involve a voter-majority enacted statute that limits the definition of marriage simply to "a man and a woman". In one state the power of that democratic rule was pled and on those pleadings granted a stay [Utah]. In the other state the majority voters do not enjoy the power of their vote on the same matter in the same exact way. [California]

So as we sit here, citizens of Utah enjoy the power of their democratic rule while the citizens of California do not. On the same indentical legal question.

And because of that, rogue officials in CA are using that limbo and legal conflict of base civil rights to gut voter-enacted law before a clear definition of constitutionality has been passed upon it. The ONLY constitutional finding in the twin Prop 8/Windsor Hearing was that state's have the right to define marriage and after that definition, the fed has to obey them. That "fed" also includes SCOTUS and lower district federal courts.

Ergo, Prop 8 was actually Upheld in Windsor 2013. And SCOTUS knows this. And so did the AG of Utah. Which is why he pled his case for a stay citing this very fact in Windsor's "State's Choice" Ruling on gay marriage under the question of state vs federal powers.

Since SCOTUS knows this, Ruled for the stay accordingly, anyone can appeal to SCOTUS right now, this very day and gain protection for their civil rights as a voter in the interim while we await the appeals on all same/similar cases.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It' easy to have two different statuses for two different cases. You appear to be confusing issuing a stay with issuing a ruling on the case. When the SCOTUS issues a ruling on the merit's of the case, that ruling is applicable to all 50 states. When SCOTUS issues a stay (or declines to issue a stay) then that applies only to that case.

I would say that was true as long as the case involved state-insular cases only,

Which at this point is what Stay's are. They apply only to that State.

Hence Utah getting the stay they requested and in the Oregon case the stay being rejected - by the SCOTUS.

Since SCOTUS knows this, Ruled for the stay accordingly, anyone can appeal to SCOTUS right now, this very day and gain protection for their civil rights as a voter in the interim while we await the appeals on all same/similar cases.

And yet the SCOTUS said exactly the opposite in their PROP 8 ruling and REJECTED a stay request in the Oregon case since it didn't come from State officials.



>>>>

 

[Skylar]

I would say that was true as long as the case involved state-insular cases only, and ones that don't involve suppressing democracy at it's core [a base violation of the most sacred civil right we all possess as equal American citizens in every state].

Frankly, your personal opinion doesn't matter. The stay still only applies to the petition submitted. That you agree or disagree doesn't change that.

The cases between Utah and California [using the perfect example for this analogy] are not different AT ALL. They both involve a voter-majority enacted statute that limits the definition of marriage simply to "a man and a woman". In one state the power of that democratic rule was pled and on those pleadings granted a stay [Utah]. In the other state the majority voters do not enjoy the power of their vote on the same matter in the same exact way. [California]

They're different in at least one significant way: the AG in California isn't seeking a stay. How then could a rejection that never happened for a stay that was never requested be overruled? Obviously it couldn't be. There's nothing to overrule.

Meaning that you're not only wrong on the way that stays apply, but you're dead wrong on any such imaginary 'stay' in California being overturned. There is no stay. There is no standing for any party not directly harmed by such a proposition. The USSC has already found that individuals in CA not directly involved in their own gay marriage case have no standing as they haven't been harmed.

So the only party that could levy such a petition for a stay of implementation of the Walker court's ruling....would be the CA AG. And the Attorney General of California isn't seeking any such stay of implementation.

Ergo, there's no route of enforcement that could even *hypothetically* exist, even if granting a specific petition somehow applied too all petitions in all 50 states.

Which, of course, it doesn't. So you've created a fail layer cake here, with one type of wrong stacked atop another.

And because of that, rogue officials in CA are using that limbo and legal conflict of base civil rights to gut voter-enacted law before a clear definition of constitutionality has been passed upon it. The ONLY constitutional finding in the twin Prop 8/Windsor Hearing was that state's have the right to define marriage and after that definition, the fed has to obey them. That "fed" also includes SCOTUS and lower district federal courts.

There's no limbo. PRop 8 has been adjudicated. There are no pending petitions for stays of implementation. There are no appeals. The case went all the way to the USSC, and the USSC allowed a lower court ruling to stand.

As for as Prop 8 is concerned, the Walker decision in Perry V Brown ends it. Prop 8 is and remains illegal to implement, by an authoritative ruling of the federal judiciary.

And who, pray tell, is requesting a stay of implementation of the Walker decision in CA? No one with standing. Who, pray tell, is appealing the Walker decision to the USSC? No one with standing.

There are no avenues of judicial redress that *could* be followed without one or the other. And you have neither.

Ergo, Prop 8 was actually Upheld in Windsor 2013. And SCOTUS knows this. And so did the AG of Utah. Which is why he pled his case for a stay citing this very fact in Windsor's "State's Choice" Ruling on gay marriage under the question of state vs federal powers.

Nope. The Windsor decision didn't address the constitutionality of State bans on gay marriage. It applied to federal law, specifically DOMA. Which it found an unconstitutional violation of rights. With the Windsor court silent on the constitutionality of gay marriage bans by the States, we're left with the Walker decision which explicitly rules that the State gay marriage ban of Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

Remember, both the Windsor decision AND the Walker decision overturned gay marriage bans. Windsor at the federal level. Walker at the State. And the Walker decision remains the highest court ruling on the constitutionality of Prop 8. Invalidating it and rendering it illegal to implement.

Since SCOTUS knows this, Ruled for the stay accordingly, anyone can appeal to SCOTUS right now, this very day and gain protection for their civil rights as a voter in the interim while we await the appeals on all same/similar cases.

NOpe again. The USSC has already denied stays of implementation by Oregon. And ruled that individual citizens not ajudicating their *own* gay marriage in Californiaa do not have standing on Prop 8. And thus, can't appeal any ruling or challenge any ruling.

So its obviously not 'anyone'.

And unlike UT, the CA AG isn't appealing anything, nor is looking for any stay on the issue. You've simply got no one with standing in CA who could appeal the case interested in doing so. There's nothing to 'overrule'. As there have been no 'stays' requested by the State of California for the courts to reject or affirm.

And you can't overrule an imaginary ruling that never happened.

 

[dcraelin]

another example of the corrupt federal courts

and another reason to have mandatory retirement for judges. This 84 year old was probably hounded by corrupt hedge fund managers until he made this insane decision to stop payment to all bond holders to aid the few unreasonable holdouts.

Argentine mess will test 84-year-old Judge Griesa | New York Post

 

[Silhouette]

NOpe again. The USSC has already denied stays of implementation by Oregon. And ruled that individual citizens not ajudicating their *own* gay marriage in Californiaa do not have standing on Prop 8. And thus, can't appeal any ruling or challenge any ruling.

So its obviously not 'anyone'.

And unlike UT, the CA AG isn't appealing anything, nor is looking for any stay on the issue. You've simply got no one with standing in CA who could appeal the case interested in doing so. There's nothing to 'overrule'. As there have been no 'stays' requested by the State of California for the courts to reject or affirm.

And you can't overrule an imaginary ruling that never happened.

I would argue that a California voter could sue on the grounds of suppression of their civil rights to have their vote counted. If a person's vote's power is being denied to them, whereas in other states that same person on the same law question is being allowed the power of their vote, then a system of oppression/tyranny exists in the state where the voter is arbitrarily excluded from his civil right.

That cannot be. And I'll be you could find dozens of SCOTUS case law to cite when appealing to them for redress. There cannot be a legal situation in America where a voter's rights can be stripped from him arbitrarily while those same exact, precisely-exact rights exist for his neighbors in another state.

There is a case. And that is it.

 

[Skylar]

NOpe again. The USSC has already denied stays of implementation by Oregon. And ruled that individual citizens not ajudicating their *own* gay marriage in Californiaa do not have standing on Prop 8. And thus, can't appeal any ruling or challenge any ruling.

So its obviously not 'anyone'.

And unlike UT, the CA AG isn't appealing anything, nor is looking for any stay on the issue. You've simply got no one with standing in CA who could appeal the case interested in doing so. There's nothing to 'overrule'. As there have been no 'stays' requested by the State of California for the courts to reject or affirm.

And you can't overrule an imaginary ruling that never happened.

I would argue that a California voter could sue on the grounds of suppression of their civil rights to have their vote counted. If a person's vote's power is being denied to them, whereas in other states that same person on the same law question is being allowed the power of their vote, then a system of oppression/tyranny exists in the state where the voter is arbitrarily excluded from his civil right.

The obvious problem being....there is no right to vote to abrogate the rights of minorities. And the federal judiciary has already ruled that Prop 8 does exactly that....a ruling that went all the way to the USSC and remained intact and authoritative.

As the 'right to vote to abrogate rights of minorities' doesn't exist, then its impossible to violate. Nixing your entire argument. Prop 8 is and remains illegal in the State of California. There are no appeals. There are no stays of implementation submitted to the courts by California. The issue has been adjuciated.

That you don't like the outcome is irrelevant.

That cannot be. And I'll be you could find dozens of SCOTUS case law to cite when appealing to them for redress. There cannot be a legal situation in America where a voter's rights can be stripped from him arbitrarily while those same exact, precisely-exact rights exist for his neighbors in another state.

Then show us. You're insinuations and assumptions of the hypothetical existence of hypothetical cases isn't actually evidence of anything. Just like your insinuations and assumptions of an eventual Supreme Court ruling authorizing Prop 8 doesn't actually have any legal authority today.

Remember, your imagination has no relevance to the rest of us. And certainly none with the courts.

Show us the cases that support your argument. If there are 'dozens and dozens', then it should be remarkably easy for you to find. If so such cases exist, it will be slightly harder.