Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ElfLord

BYU grad one of three judges in Prop 8 trial

Recommended Posts

Get ready for the accusations to Fly:

BYU grad one of three judges in Prop 8 trial

Published on Nov 29, 2010 03:06PM

Next week, a federal panel of three judges will hear arguments on whether Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban of gay marriage in California, should be overturned or upheld.

The judges, members of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, are Stephen Reinhardt, N. Randy Smith and Michael Hawkins. Smith, according to news reports, is an Idahoan who was born in Logan, Utah. He earned both his bachelor

Share this post


Link to post

Get ready for the accusations to Fly:

http://www.sltrib.co...-court.html.csp

There's going to be some deep fried spuds in this one!

no different than the accusations from members of this board that Judge Walker is a homosexual and ruled in favor of homosexuals because he is a homosexual.

Share this post


Link to post
no different than the accusations from members of this board that Judge Walker is a homosexual and ruled in favor of homosexuals because he is a homosexual.

I agree that to say someone is a homosexual is an accusation. But, in Judge Walker's case, was that accusation not true?

If so, it seems someone owes him an apology.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

LOL... How did I know N. Randy Smith was the LDS right off the bat?

Share this post


Link to post

It could be a good indication of the strength of the Walker ruling, depending on the outcome.

If they rule unanimously to uphold, that would mean even a BYU-grad conservative can't find enough holes in it to vote for reversal, which would indicate that the ruling was very solid. At that point the pro-8 side ought to consider packing it in.

Share this post


Link to post

As if this situation needed any more drama....

Share this post


Link to post
It could be a good indication of the strength of the Walker ruling, depending on the outcome.

If they rule unanimously to uphold, that would mean even a BYU-grad conservative can't find enough holes in it to vote for reversal, which would indicate that the ruling was very solid. At that point the pro-8 side ought to consider packing it in.

OTOH, if they rule unanimously to overturn, that would mean that even two liberal judges couldn't find enough substance in it to vote to uphold it, which would indicate that the ruling was very shaky. But would you then advise the immoralist side to consider packing it in?

Or perhaps not?

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

Get ready for the accusations to Fly:

http://www.sltrib.co...-court.html.csp

There's going to be some deep fried spuds in this one!

It makes sense if their is an uproar as the yes on prop. 8 crowd got bent of our shape with the idea that the judge who heard the latest court case determining whether it was legal could have been gay.

Share this post


Link to post

OTOH, if they rule unanimously to overturn, that would mean that even two liberal judges couldn't find enough substance in it to vote to uphold it, which would indicate that the ruling was very shaky. But would you then advise the immoralist side to consider packing it in?

Or perhaps not?

Regards,

Pahoran

"Immoralist side"??

I would hope that judges on either side of the question would act fairly and in an unbiased manner, judging based on law and the constitution, not their personal feelings. I'm sure that's difficult to do, but that is what they are supposed to do. Hopefully, they will all do their job honorably.

Share this post


Link to post

So whats the buzz?

No on 8:

Looks like the lineup on the 9th Circuit court is going to be Judges Michael D. Hawkins, Stephen Reinhardt and N. Randy Smith. Both Reinhardt and Hawkins have tended to be very left-leaning in the past and were appointed by Presidents Carter and Clinton respectively. Smith, appointed by President Bush 3 years ago, tends to be left leaning

Share this post


Link to post

it will be interesting if the arguments to the panel even get the "merits" of the case. As the first major hurdle for the prop 8 group is whether or not the prop 8 group should be allowed to appeal the decision.

Share this post


Link to post

it will be interesting if the arguments to the panel even get the "merits" of the case. As the first major hurdle for the prop 8 group is whether or not the prop 8 group should be allowed to appeal the decision.

I find this so silly. If the government rules that they have no standing to appeal, they have, in effect disenfranchised the California electorate. The California people passed an amendment, and those elected to uphold that law refused to defend it, leaving it to those who drafted the law. If this panel does rule they are not allowed to appeal (which I personally doubt) then they should also rule that they didn't have standing to argue during the *first* ruling, and they would have to redo the whole thing from the start. :-p

Share this post


Link to post

I find this so silly. If the government rules that they have no standing to appeal, they have, in effect disenfranchised the California electorate. The California people passed an amendment, and those elected to uphold that law refused to defend it, leaving it to those who drafted the law. If this panel does rule they are not allowed to appeal (which I personally doubt) then they should also rule that they didn't have standing to argue during the *first* ruling, and they would have to redo the whole thing from the start. :-p

I think this might play a major role...

Judge Reinhardt also wrote an opinion relating to

Share this post


Link to post

I think this might play a major role...

ElfLord,

It might play a major role. Then again, that ruling is quite well addressed in the online briefs, available at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000472

See in particular the reply brief posted on 11/02, about page 15. In particular, the controlling precedent is that when the *state* supreme court has permitted intervening parties to defend state enactments when public officials refuse to do (which is the case here) they have standing. The ruling (as explained in the footnote there) in the court case Arizona was that there is no Arizona state law which appoints initiative sponsors as agents. That is not the case with regards to California law. ;-)

My point, which you seemed to have missed, is that if they lack standing to appeal, then they lacked standing during the initial court precedings and thus the whole shebang would need to be restarted with new proponents of Prop. 8 who did not lack standing. (This is explained in the initial brief from the proponents posted on 9/22 I believe.)

Share this post


Link to post
it will be interesting if the arguments to the panel even get the "merits" of the case. As the first major hurdle for the prop 8 group is whether or not the prop 8 group should be allowed to appeal the decision.

I thought that standing applied to the plaintiffs in the case, and not the defendants. Am I wrong?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post

I thought that standing applied to the plaintiffs in the case, and not the defendants. Am I wrong?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The standing issue applies to the Prop. 8 proponents, and not the plaintiffs. You can read more about it at the link I provided. To summarize, they likely do have standing, if not there are others government agents who are likely to get standing who have appealed the district court's decision not to grant them standing, and even if this panel court finds none of them have standing: (1) that decision can be appealed, and (2) the district court ruling will likely be stricken and the entire process would start anew with new Prop. 8 proponents.

Share this post


Link to post
The standing issue applies to the Prop. 8 proponents, and not the plaintiffs. You can read more about it at the link I provided. To summarize, they likely do have standing, if not there are others government agents who are likely to get standing who have appealed the district court's decision not to grant them standing, and even if this panel court finds none of them have standing: (1) that decision can be appealed, and (2) the district court ruling will likely be stricken and the entire process would start anew with new Prop. 8 proponents.

I appreciate the useful links. In reading the Legal Dictionary, I have since discovered that standing applies to both the plaintiff and to the defendant: "The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong."

However, most legal definitions for standing, and the federal rules and principles governing standing, typically apply to plaintiffs, and not defendants. As such, the courts have considerable latitude in deciding defendant standing, and the defendants have little in the way of hurdles to prove standing. At least that is how I see it with my untrained eye.

Whatever the case, given the potential widespread impact of the District Judge's ruling on other states, and the compelling case for standing that has been made by the defendants in their 11/02 reply (linked above), I would be very surprised if the defendants weren't quickly found to have standing and the important merits then heard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate the useful links. In reading the Legal Dictionary, I have since discovered that standing applies to both the plaintiff and to the defendant: "The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong."

However, most legal definitions for standing, and the federal rules and principles governing standing, typically apply to plaintiffs, and not defendants. As such, the courts have considerable latitude in deciding defendant standing, and the defendants have little in the way of hurdles to prove standing. At least that is how I see it with my untrained eye.

Whatever the case, given the potential widespread impact of the District Judge's ruling on other states, and the compelling case for standing that has been made by the defendants in their 11/02 reply (linked above), I would be very surprised if the defendants weren't quickly found to have standing and the important merits then heard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In terms of "quickness" it appears that the panel is giving 1 hour to oral arguments on the standing issue, and 1 hour of oral arguments on the constitutionality issue. The first hour will have 15 minutes (each) from the two main proponent parties, and a 30 minute counter-argument by the Plaintiffs.

Share this post


Link to post

the issue in california and prop 8 is not something that would have "wide spread impact".

ssm was legal for a time in Ca., that right was then taken away. No other state has allowed the right of ssm and then taken it away.

there are other cases which will have an impact. those cases involve DOMA, State rights, individual rights, and tax benefits.

Share this post


Link to post

the issue in california and prop 8 is not something that would have "wide spread impact".

ssm was legal for a time in Ca., that right was then taken away. No other state has allowed the right of ssm and then taken it away.

there are other cases which will have an impact. those cases involve DOMA, State rights, individual rights, and tax benefits.

frankenstein,

The constitutional issue is not about whether a *state* right was taken away (or at least not primarily about this issue). Rather, it is about whether the 14th amendments' equal protection clause or due process clause guarantees a *federal* right to gay marriage. The district court found that the California constitutional amendment, known as Prop. 8, failed to be rationally based. Claiming that this ruling will have no effect on other states misunderstands the issue. It doesn't matter that, say Utah, never took away same-sex marriage. There is either a federal right to it, or not. And if the current ruling stands (which I seriously doubt) that would mean all other states would also need to provide that federal right.

In other words, if it is irrational for a State to stop marrying same-sex people, it is also irrational for a State to prevent same-sex people from marrying. Or do you disagree with this? Do you think it is rational to never allow same-sex marriages, but irrational to allow it for a time (due to judicial fiat) and then over-turn it (at the soonest opportunity-only a few months later-by the people)?

Edited to add: In case you didn't know, marriage rights are changed all the time. For example, States have changed the age at which people can get married. As long as these changes are rationally based (or, if involving a suspect class, meets strict scrutiny--which in this case is unnecessary as it doesn't involve a suspect class) then there is no federal question. The States have a right to govern themselves.

Share this post


Link to post

is [it] irrational for a State to stop marrying same-sex people. Yes

it is also irrational for a State to prevent same-sex people from marrying. Yes

is [it] rational to never allow same-sex marriages, Yes

irrational to allow it for a time and then over-turn it? Yes

Share this post


Link to post

is [it] irrational for a State to stop marrying same-sex people. Yes

it is also irrational for a State to prevent same-sex people from marrying. Yes

is [it] rational to never allow same-sex marriages, Yes

irrational to allow it for a time and then over-turn it? Yes

Your second and third answers seem to contradict each other. Care to expand?

I also don't understand why your answers to the first and fourth questions are "Yes". What makes it irrational for a State to change its laws this way?

Share this post


Link to post

Accusations are going to fly anyway. That's what happens when the world comes in conflict with the Commandments of God.

It's scary how far some people are willing to undermine our republics for this issue. Seems short sighted to me

Share this post


Link to post

OTOH, if they rule unanimously to overturn, that would mean that even two liberal judges couldn't find enough substance in it to vote to uphold it, which would indicate that the ruling was very shaky. But would you then advise the immoralist side to consider packing it in?

Yes, but I assume the real goal for both sides is the Supreme Court.

But if I may offer a bit of constructive criticism here, I wish you would not let yourself be so influenced by political correctness. Why settle for the only moderately insulting and judgmental "immoralist," when "sodomite" packs so much more punch?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...