Skip to main content

View Diary: Scotus Blog: Supreme Court won’t uphold or strike down Prop 8 (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  9th Circuit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, penguins4peace

    The District Court ruling was upheld by the 9th Circuit, which does have precedential weight.  The issue is that the 9th Circuit ruling was on narrow grounds - that Prop 8 could not take away a right that was previously established in state law.

    The bottom line is that the predicted result is equality in California but not in Mississippi.  The reasoning used to get there is almost beside the point.

    •  The thing is, the 9th Circuit's opinion might be (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      penguins4peace, Bensdad, CoyoteMarti

      vacated, if SCOTUS rules there's no standing (because then there would also be no standing for the case in the 9th Circuit).  So we would just be left with the district court's decision.

      The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

      by lysias on Tue Mar 26, 2013 at 11:05:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True (0+ / 0-)

        California state courts have a practice of depublication, in which the Supreme Court can rule that a Court of Appeal decision is not reversed, but that it can't be cited as precedent in any other proceedings.  The federal courts don't, so a ruling that the result of the trial court and 9th Circuit decisions stands, but the Supreme Court thinks the 9th Circuit shouldn't have taken the case in the first place, would muddy the waters, but it wouldn't make the 9th Circuit decision disappear.

        Reading the transcript it seemed like the Court really didn't like the standing argument.  There was a lot of push back on the idea that the Governor and Attorney General can trump the initiative process by just deciding not to oppose a suit attacking an initiative.  They may want to establish equality in California but not Mississippi, but the standing argument may not be the reasoning they use to get there.

        •  It would disappear under your scenario. (0+ / 0-)

          There's a couple thing at work.

          1) The Supreme Court could decide that IT wrongly took the case.  The Supreme Court gets to pick and choose the cases it hears, under its certiorari jurisdiction.  It rejects some 99% of the cases brought to it each year.  When the Supreme Court decides not to hear a case, then the circuit court decision is final and binding law for that circuit.

          This is not "standing."  This is an issue of the Supreme Court's discretion to decide what cases it wants to rule on.

          2)  The standing issue is whether the NINTH CIRCUIT had the legal right to take the case.  A party that loses in the district court has a right to appeal to the circuit court.  The problem here is that the losing party--California--DID NOT appeal.   So the Supreme Court is deciding whether it is legally permissible for the Prop 8 backers to appeal instead.  If not, then the ordinary rule would apply when the losing party doesn't appeal: the district court decision is binding.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site