Proposition 8: Long road to the Supreme Court

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
mpe
mpe's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 26/06/2010 - 18:07
Proposition 8: Long road to the Supreme Court

 Washington (CNN) -- A federal judge in California ruled Wednesday that Proposition 8 -- California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage -- is unconstitutional.Q: What happens next?A: The losing side is hoping the judge immediately issues a stay to stop the ruling from going into effect until appeals are filed. Supporters of the voter-approved referendum in particular were concerned that if they lost, same-sex marriages could be performed before the judge rules on the stay request, which could take several weeks.The next step will be for the losing side to file a "merits" appeal with the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, asking it to essentially decide whether the judge's ruling was proper. Both those for and those against Prop 8 will probably ask this court to fast-track the case, that it be heard on an expedited basis.Lawyers will argue on the larger legal questions in front of the three judges on the court, and then a written ruling will be issued. The losing side at this stage can ask an "en banc" panel of 11 judges from the court to hear the case.The appeals court has no deadline in which to decide the constitutional questions, so the waiting game could drag on for many months.Q: What will be argued?A: This is a federal appeal over the impact created by a state referendum.At issue is whether it violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection" and "due process." Such individual protections have often been used in cases of civil rights, such as school desegregation and voting.Those against Prop 8 will say that marriage is a fundamental state-sanctioned right and that same-sex couples are being discriminated against when laws deny them that right. Prop 8 proponents have said that state legislatures and voters have the right to amend a state constitution on defining marriage and that their wishes must be respected by the federal courts.Q: How does it get to the Supreme Court?A: After the 9th Circuit court rules, lawyers have the option of asking the Supreme Court to intervene, likely the next step instead of the larger "en banc" panel.The nine justices on the Supreme Court, unlike lower courts, have the discretion to deny hearing the case. In fact, only about 1 percent of petitions for certiorari -- which this appeal is labeled -- are accepted by the court for argument.If the case is accepted, as would be expected, both sides will file a series of written briefs, oral arguments would be held, and then a written ruling is issued. The high court usually releases its rulings by June of the annual term that begins in October, within a few months at most of hearing a case.Q: How long will it take to get there, given that this is a landmark case?A: Depending on how long it takes the appeals court to decide how quickly to hear the case and then to decide the constitutional questions, it could be a year or two before the case reaches the Supreme Court.Q: How might some justices look at the case?A: A key question for the court will be how it views -- or how it believes the law views -- homosexuality.The issue could come down to whether homosexuality is considered a "status" or "conduct."Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in an unrelated high court ruling in June, offered a clue to how she might decide the question. When talking about laws affecting homosexual rights, Ginsburg said, "Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context."What Ginsburg suggests is that homosexuality is a status, something courts have generally given greater legal protection, as an "identifiable class." But placing homosexuality in the "conduct" category would suggest that being gay is, at least in part, a choice and perhaps provide less constitutional protection.It is a fundamental, landmark question: Do civil rights laws and the broad constitutional protection apply in the same-sex marriage context?Assuming the high court membership remains the same over the next few years, the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy will be key. A moderate conservative, he is the "swing" vote on this court, whose views on hot-button cases often are in harmony with more liberal colleagues.Predicting how the court will ultimately rule is often futile, especially since the court is about to get its fourth new member in the last five years.

field_vote: 
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)
Gay Mouflon
Gay Mouflon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 25/05/2010 - 03:17

Με πρόλαβες! Good news travel fast! Σχετικό άρθρο στο CNN:http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T1

Gay Mouflon
Gay Mouflon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 25/05/2010 - 03:17

Επίσης πολύ κατατοπιστική ανάλυση στο:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/38567383#38567383

Gay Mouflon
Gay Mouflon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 25/05/2010 - 03:17

Η απόφαση του δικαστή:https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdfΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΑΡΑ ΠΟΛΥ ΣΗΜΑΝΤΙΚΟ ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟ!!!! ΑΠΑΝΤΑ ΣΕ ΠΟΛΛΑ ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΜΑΤΑ ΚΑΤΑ ΤΩΝ ΟΜΟΦΥΛΟΦΙΛΩΝ ΜΕ ΔΕΔΟΜΕΝΑ!!!! ΠΙΣΤΕΥΩ ΌΤΙ ΘΑ ΜΑΣ ΧΡΗΣΙΜΕΥΣΕΙ ΠΑΡΑ ΠΟΛΥ!!!!

christosnol
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 11 months ago
Joined: 10/06/2010 - 16:31

Που τα εξετρύπωσες ρε; :) Μάσσιαλλα. Είναι πολύ καλό να τα γνωρίζουμε αυτά.

dk
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 2 months ago
Joined: 07/04/2010 - 02:55

Ο Economist σήμερα:
Κάποια από τα επιχειρήματα σε bold.
 
O learned judge
A federal court overturns a Californian ban on gay marriage
Aug 5th 2010 | Los Angeles

AS RULINGS go, Judge Vaughn Walker’s verdict on August 4th in San Francisco was relentless. The state of California, he wrote, cannot ban, even by popular vote, gays and lesbians from marrying because this would violate America’s constitution by denying some couples “a fundamental right without a legitimate (much less compelling) reason.” His decision is certain to be appealed, and most watchers think it will end up before the Supreme Court. But whatever happens there, it represents a huge leap forward in America’s long struggle over the civil rights of homosexuals.
The background to the case is Proposition 8, a Californian voter initiative that banned same-sex marriage and was approved by 52% of voters in November 2008, after a nasty and expensive campaign that often turned blatantly homophobic. Two couples, one lesbian and one gay, went to court, insisting that this ban violated their constitutional rights to “due process” and “equal protection”. Arguing their case were two of America’s best-known lawyers, one conservative and one liberal, who, in a nice accident of history, had stood on opposite sides in 2000 when Al Gore fought George Bush for the presidency but who now made common cause.
During the trial in January, both sides brought witnesses to argue for and against same-sex marriage. The larger point of this exercise was to clarify and examine each individual argument against the practice.
Surgically and methodically, Judge Walker (who is himself gay) has now ruled that not a single one has any merit: the plaintiffs (ie, the gay and the lesbian couple) did not seek a “new” right, but merely the same right that heterosexuals have, and a right which in America is first and foremost a civil and not a religious matter. “Procreative capacity” has never been the basis of marriage, hence it is irrelevant, the judge found (infertile heterosexuals are allowed to marry, after all). Calling same-sex unions “domestic partnerships” unfairly disadvantages the couples. Allowing same-sex marriage “has at least a neutral, if not a positive, effect on the institution of marriage” and is good for any children involved. And so on, point by point until none was left.
The verdict will by no means silence those who recoil instinctively at the thought of two men or two women marrying. What is new is that, for the first time, any appellate court accepting the challenge must refer to the body of evidence, in the form of extensive expert testimony, that this trial has established. To overturn Judge Walker’s ruling, a court would have to find a flaw in his logic. This now seems a high hurdle.

petrosgrafs
petrosgrafs's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: 07/04/2010 - 03:15

πολύ καλή προσπάθεια παίδες:-)

"Σε περιβόλια με σπαρτά και αφθονία, μα έλειψε το νερό. Kι άμα δεν έχουμε να πιούμε, δεν έχουμε τίποτα..."