Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  You're misinterpreting this (5+ / 0-)

    It doesn't give carte blanche authority to state government to invalidate public referendums. That power would still rest with the judiciary. Any referendum passed by voters could still be taken to court if it caused injury to an individual. The Prop 8 case was not brought by those who sought the amendment. The case was filed by gay couples who wanted to get married and were denied the opportunity to do so. The court would be saying the defenders of Prop 8 had no legal standing to defend the law in court against the gay couples claiming to be injured by it. That would not mean public referendums are automatically invalidated simply because a state refuses to defended them. The trial court still have ruled against the plaintiffs (the gay couples) in the case, even without a defense. Most referendums are not unconstitutional.

    •  If no one has standing... (0+ / 0-)

      ...then there's no one to get judicial review.  That's why both the courts below took the unusual step of giving it to private parties.

      I see no reason the courts should let (let's argue it is) unconstitutional laws stand simply because no one can prove harm.

    •  "Standing to defend" is a meaningless concept (0+ / 0-)

      Standing only applies to the party/parties trying to get a court to hear their case. At the district court level, that means the plaintiff(s). At the appellate court level, that means the appellant(s). Defendants and appellees are not covered by standing rules because they don't have any choice about whether or not to be parties to a case.

      Writing in all lower-case letters should be a capital offense

      by ebohlman on Fri Mar 29, 2013 at 03:19:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site