Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Anti-Gay Group Sues To Force Brown & Schwarzenegger To Defend Prop 8

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
 
WillParkinson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 09:55 PM
Original message
Anti-Gay Group Sues To Force Brown & Schwarzenegger To Defend Prop 8
Anti-Gay Group Sues To Force Brown & Schwarzenegger To Defend Prop 8

Equality California issued an alert this afternoon that the anti-gay Pacific Justice Institute has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to force Gov. Schwarzenegger and AG Jerry Brown to defend Prop 8. And of course, the lawsuit is being brought on behalf of a Christian pastor.

The institute is arguing that as the state's chief law enforcement officer, Brown does not have discretion to defend only laws with which he personally agrees. And because the California Constitution gives the governor final say when he and the attorney general disagree on legal matters, Schwarzenegger must be compelled to file an appeal to preserve Proposition 8 as well, the group's lawsuit states. "To allow an elected official to trump the will of the people by mere inaction and the lack of fulfillment of their duty to do their job would be an egregious violation of public trust," Pacific Legal Institute Brad Dacus said Tuesday. The institute brought its motion on behalf of Joshua Beckley, pastor of Ecclesia Christian Fellowship church in San Bernardino, and included with it a declaration of support from former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III.

Equality California's Geoff Kos: "This is an outrageous attempt to try and force elected officials who have sworn to uphold the United States Constitution to defend a law that the Federal Court has found to be unconstitutional. It demonstrates their acknowledgment that the proponents of Proposition 8 lack standing to appeal, that the case should be dismissed and loving same-sex couples should be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to marry."

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/08/anti-gay-group-sues-to-force-brown.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. So say they win
All the state has to do, if forced to defend it in court, is put on a completely incompetent defense with a lawyer like Lionel Hutz from the Simpsons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
2. Can you actually FORCE someone to fight a suit when they don't want to do so?
I'm not a lawyer, but usually laws make at least SOME SENSE. I can't see how this demand will ever get past a judges desk!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. They're trying to force them to enforce the law
and it's always up to a prosecutor's discretion whether to enforce it, or not. IMO this can only go nowhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. Not only that - they are trying two force them to appeal not defend
two entirely different legal actions. The state constitution says they must defend the law - that part was done in the trial portion that already happened. An appeal is not defending anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinistrous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. Oooh ! Edwin Meese!
Now THERE is a paragon of rectitude and competence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. I hate those meeses to pieces! n/t



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. LOL!!! LOL!!!
They HAVE to sue Brown and Schartzeneger because THEIR conservative stacked SCOTUS MUST rule no one else has standing to appeal if they want to preserve their own precedents of the last 10 years. AND one of their own, Ted Olsen won the case that got the religious right thrown under the bus!

LOL!! You can't make this shit up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. This is very easy. Defend it in court, but make sure it fails. Hire Patrick Fitzgerald to defend it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. It's a last grasp at the straws
Without the state defending Prop H8, there are no competent parties to bring a case before the 9th Circuit.

Game over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 05:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. At first I was thinking to myself,
Edited on Wed Sep-01-10 05:20 AM by Q3JR4
why do you want somebody that disagrees with your law to defend it in court? Then with one sentence fragment you banished my confusion: "there are no competent parties to bring a case before the 9th Circuit." That, in a nutshell, is what they want to change.

Q3JR4.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-31-10 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
9. They didn't defend it because they believed it was
unconstitutional therefore had no way to defend it...it wasn't what they personally felt one way or another....

There is no legal standing for their suit to force them to defend...as the judge said there is no credible evidence, just opinion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Q3JR4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 06:23 AM
Response to Original message
11. In the beginning I must say
Edited on Wed Sep-01-10 06:24 AM by Q3JR4
that I wondered a bit about the logic of appealing proposition 8 in federal court, but I've taken a couple of weeks to think about it and I've come to a couple of conclusions.

In Judge Walker Vaughn's opinion striking down proposition 8 he referenced numerous court cases but two of them really stood out for me. He cited Romer v. Evens* seven times, and Lawrence V. Texas** eight times.

So I see 3 possible outcomes of the case.

First and foremost the Supreme Court sidesteps the issue all together by holding that nobody had standing to defend the statute when the state refused to get involved, uphold Vaughn's ruling, and overturns proposition 8 without making any substantive changes to federal marriage laws. If the Pacific Justice Institute has it's way or the justices just plain to choose to rule on the merits of the case, I think the four "liberal" justices will join with the man who wrote the two opinions listed above, Anthony Kennedy, and overturn DOMA and all the anti-gay marriage amendments nationwide on a vote of 5-4.

At the very least I think we'll get civil unions out of deal. I am an avowed pessimist, but even I can't see how this goes well for the anti gay marriage crowed.

Q3JR4.

*In 1992, Colorado votes approved Amendment 2 which would have prohibited all judicial, legislative and executive actions in any level of government in the state that were meant to protect homosexuals. The U.S. Supreme Court, on a vote of 6-3, overturned the law in 1996. During the four years the case worked it's way through the court system, the law never took effect.

**In 1998 a Texas sheriff entered into the apartment of John Geddes Lawrence and found Lawrence and another man engaged in sexual conduct. They were arrested, jailed, fined $200, but appealed the decision all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2003 on a vote of 6-3, sodomy laws were overturned.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
12. I can't say FUCK YOU loud enough to such people...
...it's just impossible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Steakman1989 Donating Member (17 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-01-10 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
13. Last Stand
There can't be anyway they think they can actually win this. Time and again whenever a civil rights situation makes its way into the judiciary, the Courts usually side with those that have been harmed. Even Republicans are recognizing the futility of this battle, so all that is left is a fringe far right. So long as SCOTUS doesn't pull a Dread Scott case out of this, I don't see this ending well for the far right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShadowLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-02-10 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
15. They're admitting that this case is basically over by doing this
Edited on Thu Sep-02-10 05:45 PM by ShadowLiberal
By trying to force the state government to defend this case they're admitting they don't have standing to appeal it. How's this going to look a few months later when the appeal trial gets started? They'll be tripping over themselves trying to fight that and a case to force California to defend Prop-8.

Things aren't going to get any better for them at a national level when the Appeals court rules they don't have standing to appeal the case for the state. I've read that the Supreme Court (and probably some current judges on it) has historically been very skeptical that these third party groups have any standing to represent the state in cases where the state refuses to defend themselves.

Besides that, lack of standing would be a easy way out for judges who don't want to get involved in such a controversial case. That would let them put off taking a stand on gay marriage until the case about DOMA's constitutionality reaches them. It might even make it easier for them to rule in favor of gay marriage nationwide later on if they first rule states can't decide they won't recognize gay marriages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC