Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

When a federal court certifies a question to a state court, the feds are giving the state court the option of answering the question. The federal court will then incorporate that answer into its ruling. If the state court declines to answer the question, then the federal court will take its best guess at the answer.

As I understand it, the federal 9th Circuit appeals court is asking the California Supreme Court if state law gives the people who proposed Prop 8 the right to represent the state, when the actual state authorities don't want to pursue the appeal.

For all I know, the 9th Circuit may even have a plan behind the request.

Reinhardt's moaning makes it pretty clear he thinks the standing doctrine is stoopid. (Heeeeeeeello, birthers!) And he's basically hinting that unless California says the proponents have standing, the 9th is going to dismiss the appeal.

I could imagine this sneaky bastard wanting to recognize Article III standing, so that the conservatives on the Supreme Court (such as Scalia) would have the choice of either whittling away at Lujan standing roadblocks to federal jurisdiction, or affirming a pro-gay-marriage case?

Reinhardt wants to send SCOTUS a no-win case.

The implication is that the 9th doesn't want to tell California, with its crazy initiative process, how to run its own shop. Especially since the answer would govern future crazy initiatives. (Of course, if SCOCA punts and the 9th is forced to make a ruling, SCOCA is free to ignore the 9th's ruling in future suits. Ha!)

But I don't see what California says matters with respect to Article III standing: you need smart federal judges to figure that one out.



Reinhardt's moaning makes it pretty clear he thinks the standing doctrine is stoopid. (Heeeeeeeello, birthers!) And he's basically hinting that unless California says the proponents have standing, the 9th is going to dismiss the appeal.

Norman Goldman says he thinks the judge wants to say no standing so he can throw the case out on that basis, and leave no precedent so other states don't have to go against a precedent in the 9th Circuit.

California Supreme Court to consider key issue in battle over same-sex marriage

February 15, 2011 | 8:09 pm

The California Supreme Court will decide Wednesday whether to plunge back into the legal battle over same-sex marriage.

The state high court, meeting in closed session, will review a request by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether Proposition 8’s sponsors have legal authority to defend the ballot measure.

Depending on the court’s ruling, the 9th Circuit could either dismiss the Proposition 8 appeal on procedural grounds -- limiting the case’s effect to California -- or rule on federal constitutional questions that would affect same-sex marriage throughout the country.
*******

California state officials refused to appeal the ruling. Now the 9th Circuit must determine whether Proposition 8’s sponsors, ProtectMarriage.com, have legal standing to challenge the trial court's decision.

Today is the day for this decision:

The request, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.548, that this court decide a question of California law presented in a matter pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is granted. For the purposes of briefing and oral argument, defendant-intervenors Dennis Hollingsworth, Gail J. Knight, Martin F. Gutierrez, Mark A. Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com (collectively "Proponents") are deemed the petitioners in this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.520(a)(6).)

In order to facilitate expedited consideration and resolution of the issues presented, and to accommodate oral argument in this matter as early as September, 2011, the normal briefing schedule is shortened, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.68, as follows: The opening brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, March 14, 2011. The answer brief on the merits is to be served and filed on or before Monday, April 4. A reply brief may be served and filed on or before Monday, April 18. Any person or entity wishing to file an amicus curiae brief must file an application for permission to file such brief, accompanied by the proposed brief, on or before Monday, May 2, 2011. Any party may serve and file an omnibus reply to any or all amicus curiae briefs on or before Monday, May 9, 2011. The court does not contemplate any extension of the above deadlines.

Votes: Cantil-Sakauye, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.

At issue is whether or not defenders of Proposition 8 -- the California law passed by ballot initiative that banned gay marriage -- have standing to appeal the ruling from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker that overturned it. The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco has asked the California Supreme Court to issue a ruling on that matter. They are likely to do so only as early as September, and it's not clear to anyone involved what the final decision might be.

"God knows when that’ll be done," said Olson. "It’s like pushing a piece of string."

The two high profile lawyers who argued against Prop 8 are concerned that they will not be able to argue the case before SCOTUS and settle the issue once and for all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/1 ... 63715.html

I'd like to see California again allowing same sex marriages. (As I've said before, spread around the misery.) And I'd prefer SCOTUS not take up the issue for a while. So, sorry to Olson and Boies, but I'd prefer results rather than fame.

I'd like to see California again allowing same sex marriages. (As I've said before, spread around the misery.) And I'd prefer SCOTUS not take up the issue for a while. So, sorry to Olson and Boies, but I'd prefer results rather than fame.

A federal judge has refused to overturn his former colleague's pivotal decision on same-sex marriage because that judge was gay and in a relationship with another man.

"A well-informed, thoughtful observer would recognize that the mere fact that a judge is in a relationship with another person–whether of the same or the opposite sex–does not ipso facto imply that the judge must be so interested in marrying that person that he would be unable to exhibit the impartiality which, it is presumed, all federal judges maintain," U.S. District Court Judge James Ware wrote in a decision released Tuesday afternoon.

At the time the case was assigned to him, Judge Walker was in a same sex relationship. Defendant-Intervenors contend that Judge Walker had an interest in the case because if he were to decide that Plaintiffs were entitled to have their right to marry restored, even though there was no evidence that Judge Walker intended to marry, the sole fact that he was in a same-sex relationship placed Judge Walker in the position of deciding a case that could affect him if he were to desire to marry.

San Francisco—The California Supreme Court today announced that it will hear oral arguments in Perry v. Brown, S189476, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, September 6, 2011, in the Supreme Court Courtroom, Earl Warren Building, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco.

The Perry case involves whether the official proponents of Proposition 8 have legal standing to defend the measure in a case now pending before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco. In January 2011, the federal court requested the state Supreme Court to review the standing issue. After considering the matter, the Supreme Court agreed to do so. As stated by the Ninth Circuit, the standing issue is as follows:

“Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.”