Comments on: Anti-gays back to court again to shield Ref 71 names http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/20/24513 News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:50:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: DaveM http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/20/24513/comment-page-1#comment-73184 DaveM Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:23:06 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24513#comment-73184 Lindoro: SCOTUS ruled against the prima facie challenge, that the PRA was unconstitutional altogether. They did not rule on (because it was not "ripe", having not been addressed by Settle or CA9) the "as applied" challenge, that the PRA is unconstitutional as Washington proposes to use it in this case. That is what remains for Settle to hear -- though in Sotomayor's concurrence, she set a very high bar for what would be required for such a finding, and Scalia threw away the bar altogether, judging it impossible. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf Lindoro:
SCOTUS ruled against the prima facie challenge, that the PRA was unconstitutional altogether. They did not rule on (because it was not “ripe”, having not been addressed by Settle or CA9) the “as applied” challenge, that the PRA is unconstitutional as Washington proposes to use it in this case.
That is what remains for Settle to hear — though in Sotomayor’s concurrence, she set a very high bar for what would be required for such a finding, and Scalia threw away the bar altogether, judging it impossible.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-559.pdf

]]> By: Lindoro Almaviva http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/20/24513/comment-page-1#comment-73147 Lindoro Almaviva Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:52:06 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24513#comment-73147 From the website: <blockquote>UPDATE Deputy Solicitor General Bill Collins, who is representing the Secretary of State in the ongoing Doe v. Reed litigation, reports that U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle has dismissed all pending motions in the R-71 public records case. He will await the official paperwork from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding its recent 8-1 opinion in the case and transferring jurisdiction back to his courtroom. At that point, Protect Marriage Washington will be able to re-file fresh motions to block release of the R-71 petitions. So, the bottom line is that, contrary to the challengers' previous announcement, there will be no Friday hearing. We will keep you posted as developments warrant. In the meantime, we remain under a state ban that does not allow us to release R-71 petitions – or any other initiatives and referenda. </blockquote> Seems like the road ahead will be a LOT more difficult than they expected, given that the judge can not overturn the SCOUTS of his friend's whim. From the website:

UPDATE

Deputy Solicitor General Bill Collins, who is representing the Secretary of State in the ongoing Doe v. Reed litigation, reports that U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle has dismissed all pending motions in the R-71 public records case. He will await the official paperwork from the U.S. Supreme Court regarding its recent 8-1 opinion in the case and transferring jurisdiction back to his courtroom. At that point, Protect Marriage Washington will be able to re-file fresh motions to block release of the R-71 petitions.

So, the bottom line is that, contrary to the challengers’ previous announcement, there will be no Friday hearing. We will keep you posted as developments warrant. In the meantime, we remain under a state ban that does not allow us to release R-71 petitions – or any other initiatives and referenda.

Seems like the road ahead will be a LOT more difficult than they expected, given that the judge can not overturn the SCOUTS of his friend’s whim.

]]> By: Lindoro Almaviva http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/20/24513/comment-page-1#comment-73146 Lindoro Almaviva Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:48:32 +0000 http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24513#comment-73146 Wait, they can't be using the same argument because that judge and the arguments he based his decision on were overturned by a higher court, so what is the new argument? Wait, they can’t be using the same argument because that judge and the arguments he based his decision on were overturned by a higher court, so what is the new argument?

]]>