Skip to main content

View Diary: Wisconsin AG Has Requested An Immediate Stay (From The 7th Circuit); Judge Crabb Denies Stay Re: ME (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Van Hollen may be an idiot. (8+ / 0-)
    Van Hollen has said county clerks were wrong to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses because Crabb's ruling signaled that she did not intend to order them to do so for at least two weeks.
    Yes, those darn clerks for following the constitution without waiting for an order threatening them with contempt of court.

    If the judge didn't specify a time, then impliedly the state has a reasonable time to come into compliance with the constitution.  That has nothing to do with a stay pending appeal.

    Retrospectives on 25th anniversary of Tiananmen at Chinafile.com

    by Inland on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:08:28 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  and Judge Crabb, as I expected she would, just (3+ / 0-)

      announced that she cannot issue a stay for an order which does not yet exist.

      I'm glad that she (deliberately IMHO) put Van Hollen in a position where he cannot win.

      I also doubt that the appellate circuit will issue a stay of an order which does not yet exist.

      Eventually this may be stayed by the SCOTUS, but for now the window for equal marriage in Wisconsin remains open.

      Yippeee.

      "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

      by Eman on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 01:06:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Perhaps, but I fear that those marriages (0+ / 0-)

        will be ruled invalid. We'll see what happens.

        •  Utah and Cali precedents say no. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          concernedamerican

          In both cases, before the ruling was stayed, the ruling was the law of the land.  The recent Utah decision to honor the marriages during that period came quickly.

          I think the catch 22 for Van Hollen et al is that an amendment and a law cannot be both constitutional and unconstitutional at the same time.  I'm no lawyer, but I can't see how they can have it both ways.  

          Which trumps the other, a state law ruled unconstitional, or a federal ruling without a written order?  I don't know.

          "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

          by Eman on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 02:06:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Injunctions were issued prior (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Eman, Dave in Northridge

            to same-sex marriages taking place in both those states. In Wisconsin, the state has not been enjoined to cease enforcing the state's same-sex marriage ban. It's going to be a complicated mess, I think.

            •  Yes, a complicated mess, but... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              librarisingnsf

              Judge Crabb didn't specifically order the state to obey the constitution and she also didn't order them not to pending further developments.

              So, according to The Washington Post,

              Gay couples get licenses in 42 Wisconsin counties

              At least 42 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties were issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Monday, according to a canvass by The Associated Press. Clerks in a handful of counties did not answer phone calls. Many, but not all, also waived the state’s five-day waiting period.

              it looks as if the majority of Wisconsin counties are following Judge Crabb's ruling in spite of the views of Van Hollen.

              "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

              by Eman on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 04:07:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Judge Crabb clarified herself later today... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              librarisingnsf, exterris

              from her follow-up order, page 3 (bolding mine):

              With respect to the merits of the motion, defendants have not shown that they are entitled to relief at this time. The authority defendants cite in their briefs relate to stays of injunctions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c); Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S. Ct. 893 (Jan. 6, 2014); Latta v. Otter, No. 14-35420, at 5 (9th Cir. May 20, 2014); Tanco v. Haslam, No. 14-5297, at 1-2 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341 (6th Cir. Mar. 25, 2014), but, as defendants know, I have not issued an injunction in this case. Rather, I deferred a ruling on that issue until plaintiffs could propose more specific language about the injunction they were requesting. Although I included a declaration in the order, defendants were unable to cite any authority for the proposition that a court may “stay” a declaration.
              This is the position I had expected she was taking.

              "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

              by Eman on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:19:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site