UPDATE: Prop 8 Trial - Perry vs. Schwarzenegger - US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Nov 17, 2010 4:26 AM GMT
    Follow The Case:

    December 6, 2010, 10 a.m. PST
    http://www.afer.org/follow-the-case/



    Three panel judge will hear oral arguments on Monday, December 6th, at 10am (PST)

    Two short hours will be divided by two issues, standing of the defense to appeal as well as that of Imperial County, and the second will focus on the constitutionality of Proposition 8. For more detail, see the link to the court order below.

    As in the case of the District Court trial, live updates will stream in from a number of sources which will probably be posted closer to Dec. 6.

    Court Order:
    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/11/15/10-16696_10-16751_order.pdf

    Join The Court's Perry v. Schwarzenegger -Email List:
    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000473

  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Nov 17, 2010 4:37 AM GMT
    Well our San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has a reputation as being the most liberal Court in the land. Plus, the pro Proposition 8 goons have nothing to go on. So, my money's on us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2010 12:57 PM GMT
    Webster666 saidWell our San Francisco 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has a reputation as being the most liberal Court in the land. Plus, the pro Proposition 8 goons have nothing to go on. So, my money's on us.
    I can only hope like hell! I dont trust the current mood in this country.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14351

    Nov 17, 2010 10:51 PM GMT
    You mean next month we are finally going to hear the end of this Proposition 8 court battle. I thought that there would never be a decision.
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Nov 18, 2010 7:41 AM GMT
    CA Gay Marriage Case May Be Broadcast

    [quote]
    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal announced Wednesday that it had granted C-Span permission to carry the Dec. 6 proceedings in San Francisco live.

    [/quote]


    http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/Court_Calif_Gay_Marriage_Case_May_Be_Broadcast_108827054.html


    Prop. 8 hearing on gay marriage will be televised by C-SPAN

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/11/prop-8-hearing-on-gay-marriage-will-be-filmed-by-c-span.html
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Dec 02, 2010 4:17 PM GMT
    Prop. 8: Circuit Judge challenged

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/12/prop-8-circuit-judge-challenged/?wpmp_switcher=desktop
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 4:21 PM GMT
    metta8 saidProp. 8: Circuit Judge challenged

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/12/prop-8-circuit-judge-challenged/?wpmp_switcher=desktop
    That will make it about as far as an ice cube on the surface of the sun..

    That's like having USSC Justice Thomas removed because of his wife Virginia!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 4:24 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    metta8 saidProp. 8: Circuit Judge challenged

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/12/prop-8-circuit-judge-challenged/?wpmp_switcher=desktop
    That will make it about as far as an ice cube on the surface of the sun..

    That's like having USSC Justice Thomas removed because of his wife Virginia!

    Damn, I was about to say that myself! Maybe it would be a good precedent if the circuit court judge gets recused, because then Thomas would have to recuse himself on gay cases, too. Well, fat chance of that. The US Supreme Court does what it wants, and Thomas would never recuse himself from gay cases he could vote against. icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 4:26 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said Well, fat chance of that.
    He IS getting a little fat ya know...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 02, 2010 4:36 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    Art_Deco said Well, fat chance of that.
    He IS getting a little fat ya know...

    I'm more concerned about the fat between his ears. A complete Uncle Tom, who does the bidding of the Right Wing that appointed him. Judicially inept, the weakest author on the bench, the least involved in oral arguments, lest he be humiliated with his lack of Constitutional understanding.

    But a clear enemy of gays, as his previous decisions and his wife's anti-gay activism make clear. Yet don't expect him to recuse himself on any gay issues that come before the Supreme Court, nor Chief Justice Roberts to so direct. They both want gay issues to fail before the Court, and so they will.
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Dec 03, 2010 9:35 AM GMT


    Judge refuses to withdraw from same-sex marriage case

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-judge-20101203,0,4871397.story?track=rss
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Dec 06, 2010 4:46 PM GMT
    Follow The Case:


    http://www.afer.org/follow-the-case/
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Dec 06, 2010 8:53 PM GMT
    dang it...I missed most of it because of customers kept calling. icon_sad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 06, 2010 8:56 PM GMT
    i missed it too. i am waiting for the press to release details.
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Dec 06, 2010 10:54 PM GMT
    ^
    I was told that the pro prop 8 side was a joke...they had nothing to go on.
  • Sk8Tex

    Posts: 738

    Dec 06, 2010 11:02 PM GMT
    They didn't last time either.. icon_confused.gif

    I can't help but wonder though, how the mormons over in Utah feel after spending so much money to have Prop 8 passed in California in the first place.
    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 06, 2010 11:05 PM GMT
    I listened to it and in my opinion the pro 8 side really struggled with answering (addressing) the judges questions. It was very much a dialogue rather than just participants giving their 2 cents. The No on 8 side really answered the questions and gave explanations to the judges I felt. Pro 8 avoided answering and continued babbling on about how marriage was for pro creation between opposite sexes. A lot of references to other cases heard by circuit courts and the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see how they rule.
  • UVaRob9

    Posts: 282

    Dec 06, 2010 11:07 PM GMT
    I watched it since I stayed home from work due to auto troubles. Anyway, the pro-Prop 8 side had such a weak rational basis. I seriously wanted to throttle that Cooper guy every time he said "procreation", as though every single hetero marriage was for the purpose of having children. His revisionist history of marriage just irritated me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 06, 2010 11:10 PM GMT
    UVaRob9 saidI watched it since I stayed home from work due to auto troubles. Anyway, the pro-Prop 8 side had such a weak rational basis. I seriously wanted to throttle that Cooper guy every time he said "procreation", as though every single hetero marriage was for the purpose of having children. His revisionist history of marriage just irritated me.
    Yeah, I felt the same way UVaRob. I don't know how he can say half of what he did with all the 2nd and more marriages that do NOT intend or result in procreation....lame!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 06, 2010 11:47 PM GMT
    *There is a rational basis for Prop 8*... Cooper had a hard time, it seemed, to convince the judges of that idea.

    You could tell that he was getting a little tense when his arguements had holes poked in them.

    How did we get so lucky to have both Boies and Olson on our side?
  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Dec 07, 2010 1:34 AM GMT
    Prop. 8 Has Its Day in Court—Again

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/12/06/Prop_8_Has_Its_Day_in_Court_Again/





  • metta

    Posts: 39118

    Dec 07, 2010 2:10 AM GMT


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 2:21 AM GMT
    I watched the proceedings today. I can not say how the judges will vote. But,

    The judges were particularly harsh on the pro- 8 attorney, Cooper.

    They were hard on the anti-8 guys, Bois and Olsen, but in my view they really asked questions that seemed to show that they were leaning against Prop 8. That first of all the pro-8 had no standing to argue case legally, which I think is valid, and that the pro-8 arguments did not stand up. I was particularly happy to see them grill the pro- Prop 8 attorney on the belief that the majority can take rights away from the minority. They repeatedly asked him if the majority could take away school intergration. The pro-8 lawyer was flummoxed. He danced and bobbed and weaved, and said that was a Federal issue, but he was losing. He could not say that the majority could take away rights away from the minority.

    I think this will hang on who can argue rights. Who has legal standing. The pro-8 attorney seems not to have any legal rights to argue the case because he has no standing in the case.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 2:22 AM GMT
    metta8, do you have a link to the transcript for today's hearing? I've read tidbits of it through articles but cannot find the full transcript. I love reading through the debates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 07, 2010 2:28 AM GMT
    BiggerFasterStronger saidI watched the proceedings today. I can not say how the judges will vote. But,

    The judges were particularly harsh on the pro- 8 attorney, Cooper.

    They were hard on the anti-8 guys, Bois and Olsen, but in my view they really asked questions that seemed to show that they were leaning against Prop 8. That first of all the pro-8 had no standing to argue case legally, which I think is valid, and that the pro-8 arguments did not stand up. I was particularly happy to see them grill the pro- Prop 8 attorney on the belief that the majority can take rights away from the minority. They repeatedly asked him if the majority could take away school intergration. The pro-8 lawyer was flummoxed. He danced and bobbed and weaved, and said that was a Federal issue, but he was losing. He could not say that the majority could take away rights away from the minority.

    I think this will hang on who can argue rights. Who has legal standing. The pro-8 attorney seems not to have any legal rights to argue the case because he has no standing in the case.


    I am not a legal expert but I would think that since it is an appeal of a previously ruling that the focus would be on why it should be overturned. Perhaps that is why they are more focused on questioning the proponents of prop 8. However, I did read an article about whether or not the court should consider the information heard during Judge Walker's case. This might imply that they appeals court has to start off with a clean slate.