CA Supreme Court decides it will answer question from 9th Circuit regarding Prop 8 standing

[Newsjock]

http://prop8trialtracker.com/2011/02/16/ca-supreme-court-decides-it-will-answer-question-from-9th-circuit-regarding-prop-8-standing/

Just now, the California Supreme Court granted a request from the 9th Circuit to answer the question of whether proponents have standing under California law. As expected, they only said they decided whether to decide at all- and they decided they’d answer the question. Text:

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.

[xchrom]

1. that's interesting. nt

[catabryna]

2. That's an aggressive briefing schedule...

good to hear and nice to know that the Court doesn't appear eager to depart from those deadlines.

Edited to correct spelling.

[AndyTiedye]

3. We Don't Want this to Go to the Supreme Court, Do We?

I can see why the h8ers want standing to carry this case forward,
but why would the NO-on-8 side want them to have standing to do so?

Do they really think that we can get a pro-gay ruling out of THIS
Supreme Court, the most partisan, right-wing Court in our history?!??

If it gets to the Supreme Court, they will surely side with the h8ers
and set a very damaging precedent which would be the law of the land
for decades to come.

[catabryna]

4. It is going to need to be decided eventually...

what good does it do to delay it? I mean, we can hope for a retirement on the USSC, but it's not likely to be one of the RW justices we so desperately need to go. Out of all the cases that could potentially proceed to the USSC, this is the one that is most likely to result in a positive outcome for our LGBT friends.

And, it does still need to be heard by the CA Supreme Court.

ETA: Perhaps the crazy conservatives will give up if they get an unfavorable ruling from the CA Supreme Court, but I just can't see that happening.

[AndyTiedye]

5. It's Best Not to Give This Supreme(ly biased) Court a Chance to Decide Anything

ETA: Perhaps the crazy conservatives will give up if they get an unfavorable ruling from the CA Supreme Court, but I just can't see that happening.

What grounds would they have for further action? Denied standing in Federal court, what could they do, other than start gathering signatures for another initiative?

It is going to need to be decided eventually.
what good does it do to delay it? I mean, we can hope for a retirement on the USSC, but it's not likely to be one of the RW justices we so desperately need to go. Out of all the cases that could potentially proceed to the USSC, this is the one that is most likely to result in a positive outcome for our LGBT friends.

The only way we'll get a favorable Supreme Court ruling is if Scalia goes hunting with Dick Cheney and gets mistaken for a bird.

[catabryna]

6. We'll just have to agree to disagree...

There's lots of legal maneuvering still available, and all I'm saying is that if there's a way for this case to go further up the ladder, so to speak, the opponents will use it. A few months added to the process by way of a more generous briefing schedule (time wise) isn't likely to change the final result.

If the CA Supreme Court ultimately decides that the opponents have no standing under CA law, then that decision will come much more quickly with an accelerated briefing schedule, and the matter will be put to rest in September as opposed to two years from now.

When a case languishes in the dark recesses of a courthouse, it loses steam and along with that, the short attention span of our citizenry. And, in the meantime, you have a lot of nailbiting and second-guessing. You can look at it both ways. :hi: