Skip to main content

View Diary: Prop 8 is dead, but not for the reason you'd want. (140 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  But the CA supreme court (0+ / 0-)

    granted it to the proponents of Prop 8. The 9th circuit accepted it, but that wasn't good enough for the SCOTUS majority. It seems likely that they would have treated language in the initiative any differently.

    •  But (0+ / 0-)

      The opinion quotes from the California Supreme Court decision that the proponents had no "official authority" to directly enforce the initiative.  The California Supreme Court said that the proponents could defend the initiative in court anyway, and the US Supreme Court said they couldn't, but it leaves room for a different result if the initiative itself grants the proponents the "Official Authority" that was missing in the Prop 8 case.

      That's not to say that the Supremes couldn't still get to a particular result if they wanted to.

      •  It was about the agency relationship (or lack (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tod

        thereof) between the proponents and the State. Under California law, the proponents had the authority to defend Prop 8 in court, but they weren't subject to control by the State.

        It'd be pretty easy to get around the standing issue--say, if one of the proponent were appointed to a state office empowered to defend the proposition in federal court with extremely limited oversight by the AG or courts (e.g., the AG could disapprove budet requests that were"manifestly unreasonably")--which makes the decision kind of unsatisfying.

        •  Yup (0+ / 0-)

          To me the opinion is all about getting to the result the justices were willing to get to - marriage equality is the law of the land in California but not in Mississippi or Oklahoma - and the way of getting to that result was almost an afterthought.  Those kinds of decisions tend to be intellectually fragile, as in Bush v. Gore.

    •  Irrelevant whether standing is in the initiative (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gecko, mchristi314

      Today's SCOTUS majority said that the state cannot give standing in federal court to anyone.  

      The question of who has standing in federal court is a federal question and the state can't change the federal answer to that question, no matter whether it's the state supreme court, the state legislature, or a voter-passed initiative that purports to confer federal-court standing on anyone.

      That was already well-established before today.  The Kennedy-led dissenters are arguing that the SCOTUS should create an exception to federal law on standing to allow initiative proponents (or their surrogates) to litigate over the initiative in federal court even if the state governor and AG refuse to litigate or (as in this Prop 8 case) choose to stop litigating it before the initiative's proponent would have wanted them to stop.

      Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

      by MJB on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 06:44:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  But it's federal court (0+ / 0-)

      I've never really understood why the answer to the question put to the California State Court should have mattered, or why the question should have been asked in the first place. The Prop 8 case was in federal court. The California Supreme Court could rule on standing in state courts, but standing in state courts doesn't necessarily mean standing in federal court, and vise versa. It seemed beside the point from the start.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site