Kudos to a three-judge panal for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for imposing a stay on the issuance of Califoria marriage licenses to brideless or groomless couples, at least until they consider in December whether an appeal will move forward.
To recap, in the first level of federal courts, Judge Walker decided Californians did not have a right to vote in Proposition 8 as a state constitutional amendment; brideless and groomless couples have a right to state-issued marriage licenses. Now the question is, since California's elected leadership refused to do their jobs, do the defendents in that trial have standing to appeal to a higher court?
I hate to be so blunt, but the California media's attempts to cheerlead the circuit judges into voting against the stay fell flat. And according to observers, this was a panel of two Clinton appointees considered "more liberal" than the average Clinton appointee, and one Bush appointee considered "more moderate" than most Bush appointees. Thankfully, on this issue at least, they considered the law.
ReplyDeleteThat should have read, one Reagan appointee, not Bush appointee.
ReplyDeleteIt was the right thing for the court to do, and I think I would say that even if I was in favor of marriage neutering. I have heard a lawyer who is in favor of marriage neutering predict the court would issue a stay. He was right.
ReplyDeleteNow, if the court really wants to make history, they should take the case and find that children have a natural right to a mother and a father. Or would that be just a little too activist?
Kudos to Judge Walker who so far is pitching a perfect all-hitter to the appellate courts. Every single ruling of his that has been appealed has been overturned.
ReplyDeleteLet me correct myself: I do not hate to be so blunt at all, in this case, I thoroughly relish it. Not only was Walker's ruling the total opposite of legal scholarship, but to confound it I have never seen such an egregious case of journalistic cheerleading for one side of a legal issue, ever. The media was trying to convince us all that there was only the very slimmest hope for a stay. Did they know all along that that was likely not the case, or were their blinders so thick they believed their own fantasy?
ReplyDeleteR.K.: ...or were their blinders so thick they believed their own fantasy?
ReplyDeleteR.K., now be fair. The decision was unanimous, which means it was very nearly almost a close one. And if it were a close decision, the journalists could have been excused for agreeing with just one of the judges.