Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is the overturning of Prop 8 meaningful given that it will be appealed?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 10:52 PM
Original message
Is the overturning of Prop 8 meaningful given that it will be appealed?

Given that whichever side lost the case would have appealed it, does the victory have any bearing on the eventual outcome?

Come to that, will the *next* victory have any bearing on the eventual outcome either, or will it all come down to a Supreme Court ruling with everything else just being window dressing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. At this point, I'm starting to think the right WON'T appeal out of fear they'll lose.
And that loss would be the final loss for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. I thought they already filed.
They're hoping the Roberts Court will just ignore the constitution in its usual way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. I sense they're in for a RUDE awakening. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vixengrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. The right has to appeal or they won't be able to fundraise on it.
Edited on Wed Aug-04-10 11:14 PM by vixengrl
I have a deeply cynical belief that NOM et als at base don't care about outcomes* so much as whether they'll be able to continue existing, fundraising, sending scary letters, and going on the tv. I think this is self-preservation against admitting that anyone is actually so messed in the head that they actually think they need to regulate other people's personal lives, which I think would be a sicker proposition.

*(You know, the way Randall Terry awakes in a cold sweat from dreams where abortion is actually outlawed for good, and he has to get a real job.)

The fake privilege provided by hate groups is a luxury some nasty people will pay for, so I think they will keep it going so long as it's profitable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
david13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. Depends on the ruling on appeal. And the ultimate ruling. dc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. Findings of fact are generally left undisturbed by the appellate courts (e.g., the Ninth Circuit and
Edited on Wed Aug-04-10 10:57 PM by Hosnon
the Supreme Court).

Judge Walker seems to have taken full advantage of that deference. In other words, it is extremely favorable moving forward that the ruling was in our favor and that the findings of fact strongly and unequivocally favor our side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yes, the decision by the judge
set up all the facts nicely. They could ignore the law as understood by the judge, but not the matters of fact. SO yes, it matters, that this judge wrote that decision the way he did.

This probably is going to the USSC, and has the feel of a landmark decision. Brown vs Board of Education also went through the system... so will this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. I don't know what else he's done, but right now I LOVE this judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. And he was appointed by a Republican
Oh the irony... this "activist judge" was appointed by Papa Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sebastian Doyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Not to mention that Ted Olson argued the case, and he's a long time Bush Crime Family associate
The right wingers can't blame this one on "libruls".

BTW, since this Judge is named "Walker", I wonder if he's related to "those" Walkers (Prescott Bush's wife was Dorothy Walker, and his son and grandson were both named after her father, George Herbert Walker)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. that is an interesting question indeed
they will still blame lib'ruls... oh wait, they already started.

Today I got my usual diatribe from the American Family Organization... yes I get them so you don't have to. I tell you that was pure, unhinged, and funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. Considering the way family trees go in this country, I gotta say probably.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #11
22. Hey, look at Souter. What a lovely dark horse he was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stinky The Clown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. I'm of a mind that every step forward matters, even if it needs to be taken again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
7. Eventually it will be the law of the land in all jurisdictions of the United States.
And the opponents will not be able to stop it.

They can't stop the application of the 14th Amendment clauses: due process clause, privileges and immunities clause, and equal protection clause. There was no reasonable state interest in stopping gay marriage in CA.

And they haven't even gotten to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, which they probably won't need to use. IOW, you get gay married in Massachusetts, you move to a state which does not recognize gay marriage, they are going to have to recognize the law of the State of Massachusetts you were married under as being valid. That has not happened yet, but a judge in Dallas County granted a gay couple married in Massachusetts a divorce, while the Texas A.G., Greg Abbott, sputtered about annulment.

This is what happened in Loving v. Virginia with respect to interracial marriage. Mr. and Mrs. Loving were married in the District of Columbia and then moved to Virginia, which had laws against miscegenation (Interracial marriage). Their marriage was NOT invalidated just because they moved to another jurisdiction.

Ironic given the tourist slogan, "Virginia is for lovers". :shrug:

Absoluely analogous.

Yes I am a lawyer but I don't play one on TV. :D

PS: Constitutional Law is a REQUIRED COURSE. I am no legal scholar and I can figure this stuff out. This gay marriage issue is really no-brainer stuff.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
8. Yes. History will point to this as a "landmark decision." No question. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
10. Which would you have preferred? That Prop 8 stand, or fall?
In other words, does this decision have meaning to you? Is it "meaningful" to you? Or would it not have mattered either way?

That Judge Vaughn overturned it means that the momentum is now in the direction of, oh, what shall I call it? CHANGE maybe? So when the California courts first approved same-sex marriage, that was one step forward. Prop 8's passage was a step backward. Now we're going forward again.

Would you have preferred another step backward?


Tansy Gold, NTY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
19. Why are you looking for a fight?
Clearly, prop 8 being overturned is/would be a good thing. My question is not "Is/would be taking a step towards overturning prop 8 a good thing?", but "Has America taken a step towards overturning prop 8?" - the answer to which appears less obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. I'm not looking for a fight, but I am answering the question
I mean, if all you want is for people to agree with you, fine. I can politely put you on ignore and you won't have to worry about any challenges from me.

On the other hand, I thought you put the statement out there as food for discussion -- does one think of the ruling on Prop 8 as progress or not -- and I was merely adding to the discussion.


:shrug:


TG, NTY
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
12. Judge Walker's ruling is a thing of beauty
because he demolished every single secular argument they came up with and left them with nothing but religion and bigotry.

Either the USSC decides that marriage is a religious institution and throws out the entire body of secular law, or they have to rule for equal protection with the 5 religious nuts hoping that amendment is overturned.

If they want to overturn it as a religious institution while trying to keep the body of civil law, they'll be violating the establishment clause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:16 PM
Response to Original message
16. Very meaningful. The big MO is with us and the Constitution. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
18. Yes. The finding of facts is greatly to the advantage of the Plaintiffs.
It is a very good ruling to get the issue before the 9th.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
20. Yes, it's a clear victory, especially in the way that the judge wrote the decision.
Edited on Wed Aug-04-10 11:31 PM by backscatter712
Judge Walker was VERY thorough, and completely dismembered all the pro-Prop-8 arguments piece by piece.

The findings of fact are airtight, and won't easily be overturned on appeal.

The wingnuts will have a very difficult time in the appeals courts and in the SCOTUS - my impression is that this ruling will be upheld by the SCOTUS, and it will be law of the land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-04-10 11:46 PM
Response to Original message
21. If it gets appealed to the 9th district court
and fails, doesn't that mean that failure applies to all the states under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit court?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeState Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Yes
Right now if the proponents did not seek an appeal CA would have marriage equality. If the ninth district upholds the ruling marriage equality will be law in all the states and territories governed under the district. Then if the SCOTUS upholds the ruling every state would have marriage equality :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 02:15 AM
Response to Original message
25. Brown v. Board of Education was a combination of appealed cases. Some lost
for the plaintiffs and some won. Each of them were meaningful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 03:11 AM
Response to Original message
26. No, in terms of restoring marriage equality; yes, in terms of symbolic value.
Right now, my thoughts are far more on the second topic than the first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC