9th Circuit upholds Prop 8 ruling, step closer to implementing the fabulous agenda!

[useless]

http://coop.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/06/05/1016696ebofinal.pdf

A majority of the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge N.R. Smith would grant the petition.

The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

The mandate is stayed for ninety days pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. If such a petition is filed, the stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court.

Another step forward! Prop 8 isn't dead, but it's looking increasingly flimsy. Hopefully marriage equality will come soon.

 

[LucyDuke]

Good. Civil rights should never have been put up to a vote in the first place. The Supreme Court can settle it like last time.

 

[MobBoss]

It didnt uphold the prop 8 hearing, it just voted not to re-hear it and rather send it on up to SCOTUS. The reason a re-hearing was requested was apparently only 2 members of the court ruled prop 8 unconstitutional in the initial hearing.

 

[JollyRoger]

It didnt uphold the prop 8 hearing, it just voted not to re-hear it and rather send it on up to SCOTUS. The reason a re-hearing was requested was apparently only 2 members of the court ruled prop 8 unconstitutional in the initial hearing.

They can't vote to send it up to the Supreme Court - that is not in the control. The losing party would need to appeal it to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court would need to decide to hear it. While I think the Supreme Court very well may decide to hear it, I do not think it will be on the issue of gay marriage itself, but on the referendum process.

And while you "only 2", the panel only had 3 members to begin with.

 

[MobBoss]

Is there any doubt it will be appealed up to SCOTUS?

 

[JollyRoger]

Is there any doubt it will be appealed up to SCOTUS?

Sure, it would likely have been appealed whether the 9th Circus took it en banc or not. It will likely be granted cert by the Supremes, but you just never know for sure until it happens. This just makes it more likely to be heard next term than the term after (though I can't see it even being argued before the election, much less decided).

 

[LucyDuke]

While I think the Supreme Court very well may decide to hear it, I do not think it will be on the issue of gay marriage itself, but on the referendum process.

What about the process?

 

[JollyRoger]

Whether it can be used to take away individual rights in a way that violates equal protection.

 

[woody60707]

Good. Civil rights should never have been put up to a vote in the first place. The Supreme Court can settle it like last time.

... What rights do you have that wouldn't voted on? And oh, seven, mostly old white guys deciding who has what right. Yea, that will end well.

 

[civ_king]

Good. Civil rights should never have been put up to a vote in the first place. The Supreme Court can settle it like last time.

Because the SCOTUS passed the CRA1964?

 

[JollyRoger]

Because the SCOTUS passed the CRA1964?

Nope, it was Congress that decided Loving v. Virginia.

 

[The_Tyrant]

It's going to the Supreme Court, which will find prop 8 constitutional on a 5-4 margin. Why? States rights, popular initiatives, and the 10th amendment.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yep. It has nothing to do with the 5 reactionaries that Reagan, GHWB, and GWB appointed who vote similarly on every other important issue involving human rights.

But things will eventually change. Someday homosexuals will have the same rights as everybody else no matter how homophobic the state.

 

[The_Tyrant]

Did I mention the judge who ruled prop 8 unconstitutional, Judge Vaughn R. Walker is the most overturned judge in the nation? That out to give the homosexuals confidence.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It must be a reassuring thought for "states rights" adherents everywhere.

 

[LucyDuke]

Whether it can be used to take away individual rights in a way that violates equal protection.

That'd be an acknowledgement that such law violates equal protection. That's not enough to settle it?

... What rights do you have that wouldn't voted on? And oh, seven, mostly old white guys deciding who has what right. Yea, that will end well.

The same rights as everyone else, no gender discrimination. The old white guys got it right last time.

Did I mention the judge who ruled prop 8 unconstitutional, Judge Vaughn R. Walker is the most overturned judge in the nation? That out to give the homosexuals confidence.

Ain't scrrd.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

Honestly, I stopped being a fan of states' rights when I saw it used for every disciminatory ideology you can think of. Down with states' rights!

 

[JollyRoger]

That'd be an acknowledgement that such law violates equal protection. That's not enough to settle it?

I think there is a difference between taking away an established right via referendum and the necessity to granting that right in the first place or using another method of taking away an established right.

 

[Quackers]

I can actually get behind the fabulous agenda, the gay one isn't so positive.

(no pun intended)

 

[civ_king]

Honestly, I stopped being a fan of states' rights when I saw it used for every disciminatory ideology you can think of. Down with states' rights!

I'm a proponent of States Rights so the Federal government doesn't mess with stuff like medical Marijuana.

I've never been a big fan of California's ballot proposition system, but as the system is an exercise of popular sovereignty I think it would very bad if popular sovereignty was eliminated at the federal level.