I’ll have to listen to it all to make up my own mind.
Samuel the foxhole court momma i met a boy trial#
a lack of standing at one appellate level does not necessarily mean a lack of standing at the trial court level. Preliminary analyses I have read indicates that the standing issues are not necessarily the same at every level of the process - i.e. I’ll try to link the audio and transcript later today, and provide a little analysis if I have time. I believe that, in addition to releasing a transcript of today’s oral argument (as is standard), the High Court will also release audio, as it often does in landmark cases such as this. It’s Big Media, and they have their own agenda. It would be nice if some of the coverage today mentioned Walker’s absence, and provided some context as to why that might be, but I’m not holding my breath. I’m referring, of course, to Vaughn Walker, who shockingly never got back to me concerning those emails he exchanged with a Gibson, Dunn partner about whether his attendance would hurt his preferred side in the arguments. Not mentioned: a prominent person who will not be attending - all because he wants the pro-gay marriage side to win. Times has an article today about waiting in line to attend the arguments. It will be interesting to hear how it all goes down today. If even Congress doesn’t have standing to defend its own laws, something really strange is going on.Īlthough I have to say, it feels a little funny to be yammering on about the dangers of upsetting the careful balance of power established by our Constitution, when in reality we are leaving all such issues to be decided by a single man: our King, His Royal Highness Anthony Kennedy. It’s hard for me to imagine the Supreme Court letting it happen. Such a result would, in my view, radically restructure the balance of power on both state and federal levels. The lawsuit wins, the legislation gets invalidated, and there’s nobody around with any right to complain about it. Your guy will refuse to defend the legislation, and BOOM! you’re done. Just wait until your guy sits in the governor’s office or the Oval Office, and have someone bring a lawsuit.
You disagree with a law? Don’t bother engaging in the political process and trying to get it overturned. 8 have no standing in court to defend the measures, it would essentially confer a backdoor executive veto on any legislation that an executive doesn’t like.
If the Supreme Court ultimately holds that the groups now defending DOMA or Prop. 8) or the United States (for DOMA) have standing to defend legislation when the executive has decided they will not. The immediate issue is whether lawyers not representing the State of California (for Prop. Indeed, Obama is sending in his Solicitor General to argue for DOMA to be struck down - and his argument, carried to its logical conclusion, would lead to gay marriage being legalized in all 50 states. Tomorrow’s arguments deal with DOMA, which Barack Obama and Eric Holder refused to defend in court. 8, which Jerry Brown refused to defend in court. One big issue is how the Supreme Court will address the situation where government officials abdicate their responsibility to defend measures passed by the people. The gay marriage cases are argued today and tomorrow in the Supreme Court.
0 kommentar(er)
