Kane won't defend Pa. in gay-marriage suit, sources say

[LynneSin]

Source: Philadelphia Inquirer

Attorney General Kathleen Kane is expected to announce Thursday that her office won't defend the state in a federal lawsuit that challenges Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage, the Daily News has learned.

Multiple sources confirmed that Kane, who is named along with Gov. Corbett as a defendant in the suit, plans to make the announcement at the National Constitution Center.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit, known as Whitewood v. Corbett, on Tuesday on behalf of 21 state residents. The plaintiffs are 10 couples and one widow who want to marry here, want the state to recognize their out-of-state marriages or want equal protections granted to straight married couples.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20130710_Kane_won_t_defend_Pa__in_gay-marriage_suit__sources_say.html#h1SezSCl8Zdcj0VD.99

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20130710_Kane_won_t_defend_Pa__in_gay-marriage_suit__sources_say.html

---

Thank goodness Pennsylvania has someone sane in a statewide office. You know Tom Corbett just wants to destroy the Pennsylvania environment to profit his gas buddies.

Good news from AG Kane!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. This means we get to relive Hollingsworth v. Perry

The FRC will find someone who claims he has standing to defend the current practice.

Hollingsworth v. Perry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that the official sponsors of California Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot initiative, do not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse decision when public officials refuse to do so.

U.S. Supreme Court
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollingsworth_v._Perry#U.S._Supreme_Court

....
On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court rendered its 5–4 decision, declining to revisit the Ninth Circuit's decision, on the basis that the backers of Proposition 8 lacked appellant standing, and that "Petitioners’ arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive". For the same reason the Supreme Court ruled Proposition 8 proponents lacked standing at the Supreme Court, they also ruled they had lacked standing at the appeal court, and that ruling too should have been dismissed for lack of standing. Therefore the case was returned to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to vacate their former ruling (affirming the district court's overturn of Proposition 8). This leaves the original district court ruling (overturning Proposition 8) as the final ruling in the case; it also means that the Supreme Court did not discuss the underlying substantive merits of the case, and the case has not resulted in a formal precedent for states other than California.

Details of ruling

The Supreme Court decided the case on the basis of lack of standing (see Case or Controversy Clause: Interpretation):

{A}ny person invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so. In other words, the litigant must seek a remedy for a personal and tangible harm. Although most standing cases consider whether a plaintiff has satisfied the requirement when filing suit, Article III demands that an “actual controversy” persist throughout all stages of litigation ... Standing "must be met by persons seeking appellate review, just as it must be met by persons appearing in courts of first instance." ... The parties do not contest that respondents had standing to initiate this case against the California officials responsible for enforcing Proposition 8. But once the District Court issued its order, respondents no longer had any injury to redress, and the state officials chose not to appeal. The only individuals who sought to appeal were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court, but they had not been ordered to do or refrain from doing anything. Their only interest was to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California law. As this Court has repeatedly held, such a “generalized grievance”—no matter how sincere—is insufficient to confer standing.

[WovenGems]

5. Nope

Back door precedence. Here in Michigan the trial regarding ours is set fore October. The AG is going to try. And fail. The judge ruled that the trial would go on and the issue is the one the California case brought up, doing harm. So the AG will have to argue that the harm done is worth it. He can't do that. Each state that has folks harmed by these discrimination rules will win. And SCOTUS has painted themselves into a corner. While they passed on looking at the issue in the California they silently said "No issue here". Every federal judge was waiting for DOMA and the California case to guide them.

[appleannie1]

2. She is a Democrat and probably thinks gays should be able marry in PA.

[onehandle]

3. She's our firewall against total insanity here. nt

[sbh]

4. I saw that on Yahoo, but it also said Corbett can get his office to defend the case.

It was my understanding that the AG had that exclusive right. I guess I was wrong.

[Divernan]

11. Corbett outsources legal work - spent over $3 million so far on failed lottery privatization

Then he hired outside legal counsel to file suit in federal court trying to overturn the Penn State fines re Jerry Sandusky. He has refused to reveal what he paid the outside firm, but their work was so incompetent that a judge threw out the claim as lacking legal merit - in other words, he never got near the trial stage.

It was a stupid suit to file, and either the firm he retained was also stupid, or more likely, just wanted to bill a lot of hours regardless of the chance of prevailing in the suit, and Corbett was doing them the favor of tossing business their way.

Corbett went to a 4th rate law school, (evidently failing to get admitted to any of the public or private Pennsylvania law schools, worked as private counsel for Waste Management, and was known among the AG staff, when HE was Attorney General as not too bright, and lazy.

[sbh]

15. He ignored the Sandusky issue. He's pure slime.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. So far, she is one of the best AGs

that PA has had - particularly in this current state environment with complete rethug control. Ironically, Corbutt was previously an AG here and based on the illegal crap that he has tried to pull as governor, he continues to prove his incompetence.

Good to see you out and about Lynn!

[HockeyMom]

7. One argument in Lawrence v. Texas

was that the sodomy law was not equally applied to all couples, but only to gay couples. By that it was singling out one group for discrimination.

You could also say the same with these bans on gay marriage, and their refusal to recognize other states gay marriages. These states are not saying they will not recognize ALL of these 13 states marriages, but only some (gay) marriages. Same as Lawrence. Could that be the precedence for this?

[malthaussen]

8. I'm starting to love this woman as much as Elizabeth Warren.

Warren/Kane for 2016! That would make a few heads explode!

-- Mal

[LynneSin]

9. I'd love to see her run against Pat Toomey

Toomey comes up for re-election in 2016 and that's when Kane's first term as AG will be done so who knows

[malthaussen]

10. Oh, that would be excellent.

President/VP is quite visible, but limited in power. We desperately need more of the right people in the places where the laws are made.

Problem is, the GOP has done so much damage to the Commonwealth, that the AG is going to be years in cleaning up all the slime. So we'd need to be sure that any successor to Mrs. Kane is cast in a similar mould.

-- Mal

[adieu]

12. As a general rule of thumb

we should just elect more FEMALE democratic candidates. Just more and more of them. Heck, eve FEMALE GOP candidates, except the few batshit crazy ones like Bachmann and Palin. The non-batshit crazy ones like Laubenberg in TX or Ayotte are doing the bidding of their masters. I think once they're freed of the shackles controlling them, they'll get around to legislating more centristically.

[William769]

13. The Dominoes are starting to fall!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[LynneSin]

14. More on Karen Kane:

"We are the land of the free and the home of the brave, and I want to start acting like that," Kane told reporters during a raucous news conference at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia. Dozens of supporters of same-sex marriage erupted into cheers and applause as she spoke.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20130712_Kane_expected_to_address_gay_marriage_suit_in_Philly.html#SdVuqWdgJRMIgw7D.99

[closeupready]

16. Glad to hear this. K&R

[Tx4obama]

17. Kick n/t