Prop. 8 appellants don't even have standing to appeal, judge writes

[Newsjock]

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/Final_stay_order.pdf

... Proponents replied that they have an interest in defending Proposition 8 but failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer as a consequence of the injunction.

... If, however, no state defendant appeals, proponents will need to show standing in the court of appeals.

... Proponents’ intervention in the district court does not provide them with standing to appeal.

... In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the Governor or the Attorney General to file an appeal to ensure appellate jurisdiction. As regards the stay, however, the uncertainty surrounding proponents’ standing weighs heavily against the likelihood of their success.

[joeybee12]

1. In a nutshell, hating does not give one legal standing...

Good.

[MineralMan]

2. He's right. Interveners who are not directly affected by the

decision have no standing.

[Kerrytravelers]

3. Translation: Being a bigot doesn't mean you get your way.

[xchrom]

4. Oh I'm enjoying this. Nt

[zipplewrath]

5. I never thought of this

Who was the "defendant" in this case? Who argued "for the state"?

[Iggo]

15. The Governor and the Attorney General of California...

....were among several named defendants.

They chose not to defend. The proponents of Prop 8 were referred to as the "intervenors", and they were allowed to argue in court, but I don't think they were officially arguing "for the state."

I'm not a legal expert, and maybe you can get a better legal explanation than that.

But that's basically how it went down. I think.

[zipplewrath]

16. Wow

I'm a bit surprised they were allowed to argue at all, without the specific authorization of the state. That does put them on a very shallow footing to appeal.

[robertpaulsen]

6. That clarification KICKS ASS!

SUCK IT, BIGOTS!!!

:headbang:

[Spheric]

17. My favorite line from the ruling (in context).

The second factor asks whether proponents will be harmed if enforcement of Proposition 8 were enjoined. Proponents argue that irreparable harm will result if a stay is not issued because “a state suffers irreparable injury whenever an enactment of its people * * * is enjoined.” Doc #705 at 9-10 (citing Coalition for Economic Equity v Wilson, 122 F3d 718, 719 (9th Cir 1997)). Proponents, of course, are not the state. Proponents also point to harm resulting from “a cloud of uncertainty” surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents’ appeal is resolved. Doc #705 at 10. Proponents have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse. <emphasis added> Proponents admit that the harms they identify would be inflicted on “affected couples and * * * the State.” Id. Under the second factor the court considers only whether the party seeking a stay faces harm, yet proponents do not identify a harm to them that would result from denial of their motion to stay.

:rofl:

Rock on, Judge Vaughn Walker!

:headbang:

[Hosnon]

19. No kidding. Nothing is better than a well-reasoned judicial smack-down. nt.

[Spheric]

21. I agree. I just can't help but feel that there had to be the slightest bit of irony...

in adding that line even though it is factually true and fully relevant to his decision.

[Odin2005]

26. Oh, SNAP!

Judge Walker belong on the SCOTUS!

[Hosnon]

7. Enter the political calculation. Does California not appeal and keep gay marriage safe within its

borders? Or does California appeal, risk its victory, but possibly provide equal rights nationwide?

ETA: I say APPEAL!

[racaulk]

9. It's a gamble, to be sure.

I sure would feel a lot better about the decision if Obama could replace Scalia and Thomas, though. :hi:

[sfwriter]

11. Take this to the Supreme Court baby...

I'll bet they refuse it or hear it and rule in favor of striking 8 down. Either way, Marriage becomes the law of the land, gay or straight.

[EFerrari]

13. Gov and attorney general have refused to defend H8 so far. n/t

[libnnc]

8. In the words of Yukon Cornelius....

They got "Nnn...uthin'"

[Kerrytravelers]

28. OMG. Not to change the subject, but my Pitter-pat has the same chicken hat.

I almost thought you had a picture of my furkid at first! :rofl:

[lunatica]

10. that's because they never thought to tie it to the Constitution

They're homophobes and thought that everyone would just shut up and take the shit if people voted for it. The fact that it's un-Consitutional never crossed their puny little hate filled minds.

[Ruby the Liberal]

12. The CA Governors election just got a WHOLE lot more interesting.

[eppur_se_muova]

14. HA ha! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

18. No standing, no decency, no nothing.

All they have is hate and fear.

[struggle4progress]

20. Wait! You mean, "I somehow got my panties in a wad!" doesn't confer standing?

[Spheric]

22. LOL! Darn their luck! /nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

23. It does if you refer back to the landmark "Victoria's Secret vs. Fruit Of The Loom" case. nt

[Land Shark]

29. Problem is, this approach backfires on other public policy questions like environment nt

[damntexdem]

24. The best lines about lack of standing:

"Proponents also point to harm resulting from “a cloud of uncertainty” surrounding the validity of marriages performed after judgment is entered but before proponents’ appeal is resolved. Doc #705 at 10. Proponents have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse."

;-)

[Odin2005]

25. Now that's a Smackdown!

[Scurrilous]

27. Heh.

K & R :thumbsup: