Checkmate

Eat a pail of feces, bigots!

It looks like the uneducated peckerwoods supporters of Proposition 8 are seriously considering throwing in the towel. They fear that they will lose 5-4 at the Supreme Court. That and they realize that if you have a court case, you can’t just expect to argue “well, gays are ummm, bad, mmmkay?” and expect to win.

So rather than risk allowing the 31 states with bigotry amendments “go down in flames” (their words, not mine), they might not appeal at all — and just let the Prop. 8 decision stand. (source)

Checkmate, and ha-ha fuck you, bigots.

18 Responses to Checkmate

  1. evrenseven says:

    First of all, no chance that the case doesn’t get appealed. IF the Supreme Council of Catholic Vice and Virtue (formerly known as SCOTUS) overturns, they will overturn on very narrow grounds applying only to Prop 8 in CA.

    Second of all, keep in mind that the banning of gay marriage is all some people in the flyover square states have before they all go on murder sprees. They can’t do anything about their underwater mortgage, the hours being cut back at the mill, and their property tax going up. But they can at least vote on stopping two guys dicks from touching. So, please, keep the poor bigoted rednecks hurt feelings in your heart.

  2. The morons who want to appeal it might not have standing to appeal. But, your response is credited.

    • evrenseven says:

      Walker has GOT to be some kind of genius. Let’s say 9th circuit says no standing during the substantive appeal (vs. just the stay hearing), and *that* issue heads to SCOTUS first. This puts the conservative majority in a catch 22 situation- if you want gay marriage to come back to SCOTUS on substantive grounds, you’re going to have to expand standing, meaning that every Tom, Dick and Marc Randazza is going to start intervening in federal lawsuits. However, this is also a GREAT way for SCOTUS to punt on the issue: find no standing, limit gay marriage to CA (for now) and come back to it a decade later.

      If the 9th circuit hears a substantive appeal, then the real problem is going to be Utah and Arizona, since they’re under the 9th’s jurisdiction. They’ll make a big stink if they have to perform gay marriages.

  3. ChadKnowslaw says:

    Utah is part of the 10th Circuit, but Arizona has some serious right-wing wackos. Idaho is a hard-right 9th Circuit state that would be all ablaze with indignation.

    Standing of intervenors was mentioned, but not really addressed, in Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, where Justice Ginsberg wrote in a unanimous opinion:

    (a) Grave doubts exist as to the standing of petitioners AOE and Park to pursue appellate review under Article Ill’s case-or-controversy requirement. Standing to defend on appeal in the place of an original defendant demands that the litigant possess “a direct stake in the outcome.” Diamond v. Charles, 476 U. S. 54, 62. Petitioners’ primary argument-that, as initiative proponents, they have a quasi-legislative interest in defending the measure they successfully sponsored-is dubious because they are not elected state legislators, authorized by state law to represent the State’s interests, see Karcher v. May, 484 U. S. 72, 82. Furthermore, this Court has never identified initiative proponents as Article-Ill-qualified defenders. Cf. Don’t Bankrnpt Washington Committee v. Continental Ill. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 460 U. S. 1077. Their assertion of representational or associational standing is also problematic, absent the concrete injury that would confer standing upon AOE members in their own right, see, e. g., Food and Commercial Workers v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U. S. 544, 551-553, and absent anything in Article XXVIII’s state-court citizen-suit provision that could support standing for Arizona residents in general, or AOE in particular, to defend the Article’s constitutionality in federal court. Nevertheless, this Court need not definitively resolve the standing of AOE and Park to proceed as they did, but assumes such standing arguendo in order to analyze the question of mootness occasioned by originating plaintiff Yniguez’s departure from state employment. See, e. g., Burke v. Barnes, 479 U. S. 361,363,364, n. Pp.64-67.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/520/43/case.html

    • evrenseven says:

      oops, got my square fly-over states mixed up. Unfortunately, the “grave concerns” language is all dicta, since the case was dismissed as moot. I really wish they just sacked up and called it an alternative reason for dismissal before the merits.

      Point is, it’s another example of how they love to punt cases they don’t want to decide. Would you want to come within a mile of this decision? Hell no, when you can merely say the wrong guy showed up in court.

      • ChadKnowslaw says:

        Like the way SCOTUS punted the “under god” issue by ruling the non-custodian father of the student did not have standing? :-)

        • Yeah… which was such a questionable decision. I can’t, however, see how Scalia could have any intellectual honesty and rule the same way when it comes to these uptight dickwads being the “injured” parties in this litigation.

        • evrenseven says:

          it was a good punt. No one can argue with a straight face that forcing a child to repeat “under god” in a public school *isn’t* a violation of the establishment clause. The best they could do is spin some yarn about tradition and the “mostly secular” meaning of the pledge blah blah blah blah.

  4. ChadKnowslaw says:

    Hypothetically, if the case goes to SCOTUS and they determine no standing, an no state officers are part of the appeal, then Judge Walker’s ruling stands for the State of California only, but does not apply (yet) to the rest of the 9th Circuit?
    And aren’t the Prop Hate Proponents also relying on some Imperial County nitwit official to stay in the game, so even if they are out the Imp County official can continue the appeal?

  5. evrenseven says:

    BTW, they’ve already went ahead with the appeal- their case rests upon CA’s legitimate interest in regulating procreation.

    I guess next they’ll start protesting out front of Octomom’s house, but somehow I doubt it.

    Here’s the 9th circuit ordering a stay of the decision pending appeal, but at the same time directing appellants to show that they have standing.

      • ChadKnowslaw says:

        Crap. But Yay for expediting the process and tackling the standing issue!

        • evrenseven says:

          Let’s not kid ourselves. The court will bend over backwards to uphold prop 8.

          It just isn’t the right time. You need a time of prosperity to tackle issues like this.

          The ‘necks in Arizona are one step from lynching their cleaning lady out of blind rage. The Glenn Beck followers in the Midwest probably each have an assassination plot against Nancy Pelosi. People are fuming pissed, and they don’t even know against what exactly… things are going on that they don’t understand and that they have no control of. However- by god at least they can vote on stopping two guys dicks from touching! They at least have that!

          I will bet the remaining year of my salary that prop 8 is not overturned. In the end, SCOTUS will pull a Newdow, and say that the intervenors never should have been allowed to defend in the first place and throw the first decision out.

          • ChadKnowslaw says:

            How would finding no standing work to throw out the District Court decision?

            • evrenseven says:

              Becaun se they’re scotus and they can do whatever they want.
              Think bush v gore.

            • ChadKnowslaw says:

              But in the Newdow case, the person who was determined not to have standing was the plaintiff, so ruling he had no standing would throw out the entire case. Ruling that an intervenor did not have standing, after a full trial, should not invalidate the District Court ruling. I don’t think there are 5 justices that could come to that conclusion.

%d bloggers like this: