Last login: Friday, December 10, 2010
Tom, I agree. The voters of California were not well served at all by their attorney general and governor's refusal to defend Prop 8. As a matter of principle, they attained their offices by a majority vote, so you so you think that they would not have such a cavalier disregard for the voters' expressed will. The apparent collusion between governor, attorney general, and judge does not look good at all.
Also, one has to wonder why the parties had standing for the trial, but did not have standing for any appeal that follows. That is very strange. Judge Walker has his show trial, then tells Prop 8 defenders, "Oh, by the way, you probably don't have any standing for the appeal process."
Well, then, why did he let them have standing for the trial? Was that so he could deliver his "magnum opus" decision just before retiring?
Ironically, Brown and Schwarzenegger may have messed things up for the gays by not defending Prop 8. It appears that Boies and Olson did not certify the case as a class action, because they did not expect to be unopposed. Therefore, according to the 9th Circuit's own precedent, it may well be that the only ones affected by a favorable ruling for the plaintiffs will be the plaintiffs themselves.
If you Google Vikram David Amar and Prop 8, you will get an excellent analysis of different ways Prop 8 could go on FindLaw.com. Vikram is Professor of Law at the UCLA Davis School of Law. He also voted against Prop 8, so I think his analysis is about as objective and accurate as any that can be found on the internet.
Bottom line, gays who want Prop 8 tossed had better hope it doesn't go to the Supreme Court.
December 10, 2010 at 7:47 p.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
© 2016 KPBS Public Broadcasting