Judge to a bunch of assholes on California: Suck it.

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Jesus. Go read the trial transcripts! That's what the entire thing was about!

That's not what it was about. The case was about whether Prop 8 comports with the Constitution. It had nothing to do with whether the voters had standing to vote as they did or not. Certainly the voters didn't intend to pass a law that violated the federal Constitution, so you can't somehow take a "they shouldn't have voted that way in the first place" view of it. That's not how it works. Their votes were legitimate until the ruling came down. To pretend otherwise is to just leave out half of the equation needed to balance the rights of the minority vs. the will of the majority. Both are important and deserve thorough consideration.

Originally Posted by Eulogy

liberal law professors don't just like the result. they like the opinion.

You're going to find out pretty soon that there's usually not much difference between the two. Law professors are no less prone to distorting the law to their own ends than any other liberals.

you can't dismiss them and then act as though i need to just take your word for it.

I'm not asking for my word to be taken. But I do think my specific criticisms of the opinion should be given some consideration on their own merits before being thrown over for the word of anonymous "legal scholars" who "like" the opinion.

[bloop]

I tend to think the truth is somewhere in the middle between Corganist and the preponderance of legal scholars.

I do see his point, though, that you want the legal opinion to be rock solid, whether or not I agree with him about Walker's in particular (I am decidedly not a legal analyst. I'm just interested). If it isn't appealed, it doesn't apply to as many states, either. It may be in the "No" side's best interest for them to be permitted to appeal anyway.

I do not think, though, that this would be the best use of the state's money, especially when said state is currently in financial crisis.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Corganist

Their votes were legitimate until the ruling came down.

...

and if you read the trial transcripts, you realize it's the only possible ruling. which is my only point here. it doesn't matter how they voted because a vote like that puts in place a law that is unconstitutional.

[Eulogy]

Man, I'm glad I didn't set my CA gay wedding date already.

The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to ******* in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997)

dur

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

...

and if you read the trial transcripts, you realize it's the only possible ruling. which is my only point here. it doesn't matter how they voted because a vote like that puts in place a law that is unconstitutional.

But again, there was no way for them to know it was unconstitutional when they voted for it. And it's not the courts' place to try to ascribe subjective intent to the voters anyway. I just don't understand what you see as controversial about making sure that when you wipe out a popular vote that it is done in a way that is carefully reasoned and exhaustively argued. Otherwise you're just accepting a "the ends are more important than the means" approach, which in the context of the law just is not tenable.

Originally Posted by Eulogy

Man, I'm glad I didn't set my CA gay wedding date already.

So the appeals court once again has to come in and slap down a legal judgment this judge handed down. If this guy can't even conduct trial procedure without the appellate courts stepping in multiple times and putting him back in line, how can you be so confident in his other legal conclusions?