It looks like the 9th Circuit may toss out the Prop. 8 appeal for lack of standing after all. Issued today:
Docket Text:
Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and SIDNEY R. THOMAS) Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal.This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California. The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997). IT IS SO ORDERED. [7441574] (JS)
I’m not sure if I would rather see the case tossed for lack of standing — and thus the complete death of Prop. 8, or if I’d rather see it go up so that the ruling can be more expansive.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
As I said in the other post, no chance in hell walker’s decision survives. Scotus will find a reason or invent a reason to vacate the trial court’s holding so that prop 8 stands without arguing the merits. Marc my words.
How could they possibly have standing? Where is the “irreparable” harm?
Marriage, so far as the state is concerned, has to do with taxes and death benefits. Nothing more.
Any other specifics that one ridiculous religion or another choose to place upon their definition of “marriage” is their own business… and the government has no business condoning or condemning it.
Period.
Frankly, I’m getting seriously sick of these idiots who seem to think the Bible is anything other than a clever work of fiction, and who deign to utilize anything other than their own ability to assimilate the sum of their experiences and their ability to reason when coming to a conclusion… and expect to be taken seriously.
But I digress… point is, claimants have no standing, and never will. Marriage is about taxes and death benefits so far as the state is concerned… and any recognition in excess is a per se violation of the Matthew’s Test. Period.
Death benefits and taxes but don’t forget obligations of financial support, make decisions during life (such as emergency medical treatment), community property ownership, and right to sponsor non-citizens for immigration purposes.
I can see the appeal dismissed for intervenor’s lack of standing and the original defendants choosing not to appeal. That would prolong the inevitable. Mixed-race marriages took nearly 20 years — from 1948 to 1967 before the right to marry between races was the law of the land. Same-sex marriages are ahead of that schedule if you think the clock started in 2004 with the Massachusetts ruling or a little behind that record if you think the clock started with the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling in 1993.