|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Landmark gay marriage trial starts today in California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Have you actually resorted to the rubber and glue argument? AKA, "I know you are but what am I?"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Story here, includes link to full opinion.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
You bastard! I was gonna post that.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Transcript here.
The early analyses I've seen strongly suggest Kennedy wants to punt it.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The Supreme Court has held that the the group defending Prop 8 did not have standing to appeal from the District Court decision, thus the Ninth Circuit's opinion is vacated. This means that the District Court decision remains as the law and Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Opinion here.
In related news, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional. Opinion here.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The 9th Circuit ruling stands: Prop 8 was unconstitutional, plain and simple. Technically, the Ninth Circuit's ruling is vacated and the appeal is dismissed. It's the District Court's ruling that stands. But you are correct that the final result is that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Well, for what it's worth, I think they were wrong on the standing question. The California Supreme Court, in response to a questions from the Ninth Circuit, specifically said that this group did have the authority under California law to represent the state on challenges to Prop 8. The U.S. Supremes just chose to ignore that.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The state of California has standing to defend any law challenged as unconstitutional. The only question is whether the parties to this case have the authority to represent California in this proceeding. The California Supreme Court said yes. Roberts parsed and nitpicked the opinion until he felt he could get away with ignoring it. I've read the opinion of the California Supreme Court. It's clear that they held that the appellants had the authority under California law to represent the state. The only way to get around that holding is to basically ignore it, which is what Roberts did.
You are quite correct that the question of standing in federal courts is for federal courts to decide. But there is no doubt that a state has standing to defend its own laws. Who has authority to represent the state's interests is a question of state law. Roberts ignored state law and misconstrued the federal question. Edited by subbie, : No reason given.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
You are conflating two very separate questions.
Question 1: Who has standing to appeal? Answer: the state of California. This is a question of federal law. No state court can grant to the state standing to appeal in federal courts. This is well-settled law that I agree with. However, it is also well-settled that the state has standing to appeal any decision declaring any portion of its constitution unconstitutional. Do you agree with this? Question 2: Who has the authority to represent the state? This is a question of state law. The state of California, including the state supreme court, is well within its authority to say who, under state law, has the authority to represent the state when its laws or constitution is under attack. This is not a question for federal courts, they are bound by state law determinations about who has that authority. The California Supreme Court specifically held that these litigants had the authority under California law to represent the state of California in these proceedings. Once that happened, the U.S. Supreme Court had no authority to question or decide that issue of state law. Keep the two questions separate. Who has standing (a question of federal law)? The State of California. Who has the authority to represent the state (a question of state law)? The appellants.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
If federal law said that the appellants did not have the authority to represent the state, despite what the state law said, then wouldn't the federal law supersede? No. Federal courts have no authority to construe state law contrary to an authoritative construction by the state. The ultimate authority on what a state's law means is that state. That's why, when this case was in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court certified the question of whether state law allows the appellants to represent the state to the state supreme court. They wanted the most accurate and definitive answer to that question. Now, to be sure, federal courts do interpret state laws all the time. It's quite common for questions of state law to come up in federal courts in a variety of different ways. However, at all times, they must defer to state determinations of the meaning of their laws. If a federal court determines that a state law violates the U.S. Constitution, the state is bound by that decision, because the federal court system is the final arbiter of constitutionality. But it must defer to state courts on the meaning of the laws of the state.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
No, that's the DOMA case.
The appellants in the Prop 8 case were a group proponents of Proposition 8. They pushed for the passage of the Proposition.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
What were those citizens saying were the reasons that they wanted to challenge the removal of Prop 8? It helps to remember the entire history of gay marriage in California. The state supreme court declared laws banning same sex marriage unconstitutional. A group of hate-filled bigots got Proposition 8 on the ballots as a referendum to in effect undo that decision. The Proposition passed. Under this situation, it's easy to see that state authorities might be disinclined to defend the Proposition. In order to ensure that the will of the people as expressed by the passage of Proposition 8 is adequately defended in court, California law gives the proponents of a given Proposition the authority to represent the state in court. They are not representing their interests, they are representing the interests of the state as expressed by the will of the people. Edited by subbie, : No reason given.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
The people that defended the proposition actually participated as representatives of the state's interests at the district court level. They were defending the proposition because the then governor disagreed with the proposition and refused to defend it.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
If the governor, or his designee (say the state attorney general) or says that citizen Y can represent the state, that's would pose a much closer question. But in this case we have something different. We have a CA court saying that some ordinary citizens can represent California. No. We have the state supreme court holding that California law provides as follows:
quote: 52 Cal. 4th 1116, 265 P.3d 1002, 134 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 (2011) This is THE authoritative construction of California law, proponents have the right to assert the state's interest. The only way to get around this is to ignore it. It is of particular importance to note that, under California law, ballot initiative proponents are not simply "some ordinary citizen." The court explained:
quote: Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
There are two separate issues here.
Nobody doubts that the state of California has standing to pursue this matter. The only question is who has the authority to protect California's interests. States have the inherent authority to delegate who has that authority. Obviously, the state itself cannot do it. The state is an abstract governmental entity. It acts through the actions of people, its agents. In the vast majority of cases, that agent is going to be the attorney general (or someone in his office). In this particular case, since the challenged constitutional amendment was enacted by a referendum, it's reasonable to consider the possibility that the attorney general or governor might not want to defend it if they disagree with it. Thus, it's in the interests of those who voted the initiative into law to have someone who supports it defending it. That's why California law specifically authorizes the proponents to do so. Nobody is arguing that California is trying to get around the standing requirement or eliminate it as suggested by your hypothetical. Instead, they are trying to meet it by designating a certain class of people who have the authority to assert the state's interests. Standing in federal court is and always will be a question of federal law for federal courts to construe. However, the identity of the person or persons that a state designates to represent its interests is a question of state law.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024