Washington State Gays Wait For Marriage Ruling

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/09/092605washWeds.htm

A decision could come at any time in a case seeking marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples in the state of Washington.

Arguments challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage were made before the Washington Supreme Court last March. (story)

The case involves eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in King County (story)

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. A decision was due Sept 8

Historically, the Washington Supreme Court has always issued rulings within 6 months of hearing oral arguments, and they always publish their rulings on Thursday. They heard arguments on March 8, 2005; the six months were up on Thursday, September 8 with no ruling.

One of my co-workers, a lawyer, said that the Court can withhold a ruling for as long as it wants. They may NEVER issue an opinion, and there is no mechanism in place that could make them. Until they do, the status quo (ie, discrimination despite two lower court rulings) remains in place.

[davidinalameda]

2. wouldn't the lower court opinions stand if the supreme court

never issues a ruling?

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. Nope.

Both of the lower courts stayed implementation of their rulings until the state Supreme Court heard the case and issued its own opinion. So as far as the law is concerned, it is as if there were no earlier court rulings.

Which opens up an interesting possibility: What if one or both of the lower court judges gets tired of waiting and unstays their decisions? I will have to track down my lawyer friend and ask if that is possible.


Added:

I spoke to one of the lawyers I work with. With the caveat that he is a corporate lawyer with no constitutional experience....

The issue is whether the "stay my ruling until the Supreme Court has ruled" can be recinded by the judge. The formula is technically pro forma; it is always used when lower courts rule on constitutional matters, but it not required. Technically, a judge can change his mind, but my co-worker is not aware of any instance where it happened after the case has been heard by the Supreme Court.

But even if it did happen, it could prove a fruitless excercise. The two cases in question would separately proceed to the state court of appeals, probably still joined together as one docket. Regardless of the ruling, however, the matter would once again land on the Supreme Court's doorstep. The Court could then, once again, accept delivery of the huge can of worms and proceed not to open it. Full circle.

[jonolover]

4. WOW!

I would rather the High Court issue some ruling than stay silent.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. You and me both

Along with tens of thousands, if not more, gay people in Washington State alone.

Ultimately, the problem is this: judges in this state are elected, and the ideological balance in Washington is very, very close. Any ruling is going to piss off half the electorate, draw a huge amount of attention to the perceived problems of the Court and end up in very ugly reelection campaigns. Normally placid non-partisan judicial elections will become trench warfare based solely on real or perceived ideology, and the last few seasons have shown a decidedly anti-incumbent attitude amongst the citizenry. (You see now, I'm sure, the wisdom of our Founders in creating an "appointed for life" judiciary who can't be swayed by political threats.) The very last thing any of the Supreme Court judges want is a bright international spotlight shining down on them.

And so, the ruling remains buried.

[TaleWgnDg]

6. I've oft wondered WHY . . . why did some states

.
I've oft wondered why. . . why did some states deviate in their constitutions from John Adams' (Massachusetts constitution) model from which the federal judicial system originated? John Adams' first-in-the-nation constitution was, and remains, correct! Our judges, from the lowest courts to our highest justices are all appointed. Elected judges are biased judges, period. As opposed to appointed judges who remain for life (or until a pre-set retirement as in some states) without campaign funding or voters whims or other heated politics interfering with their judicial duties.
.

[TechBear_Seattle]

7. Here's why

Appointed judges are generally perceived as being "out of touch" and "unaccountable." Just look at the right wing furor over the federal and Supreme courts. How many goppers, do you think, would have liked to have every last one of Clinton's appointees forced to undergo reappointment? Of course, now that the shoe is on the other foot, appointments-for-life are great exemplars of the high wisdom of the Founders.

[TaleWgnDg]

9. My position has nothing to do with "shoe is on the other foot,"

.
My position has nothing to do with "shoe is on the other foot" as you assume; instead, my position has developed through first-hand knowledge, my professional experience from more than 39 years or so as a practicing attorney as well as many years of professional training and teaching. Again, I'd rather have my client appear before a judge who has no conflicts of interest and can render an unbiased opinion. As opposed to a judge who's been corrupted through corporations, lawyers, and whomever else giving campaign monies. For example, are you familiar w/ the debacle in Texas where judges are bought, i.e., the TX Supreme Court is intentionally packed with corporate hacks who were bought? And, that's only one example of elected judges.

Who the hell cares who appoints which judge? Because once seated on the bench, they are independent. That's the constitutional essence of the Judicial Branch, to be independent of other branches of government particularly the politics of the other two branches as well as the corruptive nature of campaigning. The U.S. Senate is the "check and balance" for a president's judicial nominations not anticipated periodical voters reactions. It's express in our federal constitution. That's why Adams initiated such a check on the Executive Branch as I stated above. Are you familiar with the present sitting justices on the U.S. Supreme Court and who appointed them? Past justices? Again, once on the bench they become quite independent and owe nothing to anyone from the past or into the future.

I strongly suggest that you do some relevant research on this matter.

Here's a start: http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/lawyer/issues/71/judicial.html

And more . . .

"06/27/02 Court upholds free speech rights of judicial candidates . . .
In a 5-4 vote in a case challenging Minnesota's election laws, the Supreme Court today ruled that candidates for elected judicial positions cannot be prevented from expressing their stance on public policy issues. Candidates would still be barred from declaring how they would vote on any particular issue brought before them if elected. Federal judges are appointed, as are some or all in several states. But in 39 states, some judges are elected. In Texas, it is estimated to cost $2 million to win an election for a judgeship. Some feel the relaxed rules will allow more people to run as they can now build constituency. Others criticized, noting that judges may now feel beholden to contributors to rule in certain ways in certain cases. In her concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor criticized the election of judges and Minnesota's defense of its own law, saying in essence that if the states want elected judges, they will have to put up with the vagaries of elections. The case is Republican Part of Minnesota v White."
(boldface emphasis added by TaleWgnDg)
http://www.usconstitution.net/newsarch_02.html

.
__________________
edited for typos
.

[Meldread]

8. I agree.

Elected judges are a horrid idea. Appointed Judges, though, have their downsides. I do not like how the SCOTUS is elected for life. I believe the Judges should be appointed but only allowed to serve in a 12 year cycle.