Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: CA Supreme Court Rules Prop 8 Advocates Have Standing to Appeal. (63 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The current decision sheds some interesting light (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cooper888, Adam B, bythesea, skrekk, jpmassar

    particularly on the facts surrounding Article Three standing.

    Based on the discussion of Arizonans for Official English it appears that the question of Article Three standing may well turn on how state law views the question of standing where the state itself refuses to defend a ballot initiative. Today's decision would, I think, provide support for the defendant-intervenors' inevitable contention that they possess such standing.

    Although I might--and am--very much inclined to want to see Prop 8 overturned as expeditiously as possible, even if on a technicality, it's probably best for the case to be decided on its merits. There is also the possibility that if the defendant-intervenors were denied standing, then they entire proceeding (including Walker's decision) would be mooted; in fact that was the defendant-intervenors' Plan B (so to speak). If that seems like a real possibility then I'd rather see the case proceed and be decided on its merits. Based on the laughable defense mounted by the defendant-intervenors, the appeals court should have little difficulty in coming to the correct conclusion.

    •  The case has already been decided on the merits. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar

      IANAL, but my understanding is that to have the ability to appeal, the loser must show harm which of course in this case there is none to be shown.

      The intervenors have already had their day in court and they lost.

      •  You misunderstand the meaning of "standing" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar

        It doesn't merely mean particularized harm. There are kinds of harm, explained elsewhere by others far more knowledgeable and articulate than I am. You should certainly read Adam B's frontpage diary.

        In addition, the state court decision (as much as I hate to admit it) does make a fairly compelling case that since the initiative process is part of the legislative process, not permitting to backers of the measure to defend it where the governor and attorney general refuse to do so would be a form of veto not subject to override. Laws passed by a legislature and vetoed by a governor can be restored if the legislature overrides the veto; therefore if the governor in effect vetos an initiative, there needs to be a way to pursue the overriding of that veto.

        On the other hand, you're right. The intervenors had their day in court and lost, not because they didn't have standing but because they didn't have a valid argument.

        •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

          I don't see how this is anything like a veto.   One could argue that in CA, it is easier to pass something through initiatives as there is no possibility of a veto.

          Much like laws made by the legislature can be challenged in the courts, so can laws enacted through initiatives.   I really don't see how this has any analogy to a veto by a governor.

          Here's the problem I have with this ruling.   Initiatives are put on the ballot and enacted through the people not a group.   It is the signatures of voters not the group or coordinators who got the signatures.   How do you know that all those who signed the petition are in favor of appealing this?

          There is no harm here of any kind, unless you consider having your feelings hurt being harmed.

          •  Overall I'm on your side (0+ / 0-)

            But I think it's a matter that contains some technicalities that depart from a common sense understanding.

            FYI, on Prop8TrialTracker today there is an excellent explanation as to why yesterday's ruling was a poor one.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site