Rules for oral appeal layed out for Perry

Timothy Kincaid

November 15th, 2010

These shall be the rules for the oral arguments in the appeal of Perry v. Schwarzenegger:

The Court orders that oral argument in these appeals be conducted in the following manner: The argument shall be divided into two hour-long sessions, with a brief recess in between. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant’s standing and any other procedural matters that may properly be raised. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

During the first hour, the Hollingsworth defendants-intervenors-appellants (“Proponents”) shall first have 15 minutes, and the Imperial County movants-appellants shall next have 15 minutes in which to present their opening arguments regarding standing and other procedural issues. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 30 minutes in which to respond. Any time reserved by either appellant may be used for rebuttal, but only one rebuttal argument may be made and that by either appellant.

During the second hour, the Proponents shall first have 30 minutes to present their opening argument on the merits of the constitutional question. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 15 minutes, and the plaintiff-intervenor-appellee City and County of San Francisco shall have the next 15 minutes, in which to respond. Any time reserved by the Proponents may be used for rebuttal.

No later than November 24, 2010, the parties shall advise the Court of any objection they have to the allocation of time within each hour or of any reallocation of time within each hour that they wish to propose, by electronically filing letters with the Clerk of the Court. If any party wishes to give its full allotted time within either hour to an amicus curiae, it may request that the Court reallocate that time accordingly. Otherwise, no motions for leave to participate in oral argument by amici curiae will be entertained.

Christopher Eberz

November 15th, 2010

I’m a little confused with respect to the earlier issue of whether or not Prop 8 proponents would be allowed to defend the issue in court. Can someone help me understand how this fits with that issue?

Franck

November 16th, 2010

Christopher, under this schedule, it seems that the question of who is allowed to defend Prop. 8 will be treated during the first hour – “arguments regarding standing and other procedural issues”

Bryan

November 16th, 2010

I’m a little confused about the 2 hour time limitation. Even a night school class meets for 3 hours.

How do the justices of the 9th Circuit expect to be fair to either side of the argument when they limit the hearing to such a short amount of time?

Lucrece

November 16th, 2010

Because it’s an appeal, not a trial.

The arguments were already made and the evidence offered in trial court.

These arguments basically boil down to convincing the appeals court why the trial court was wrong, procedurally and ideologically.

gar

November 16th, 2010

Gov.-elect Jerry Brown pledged that he would not put the states backing in defense of Prop 8 if elected governor. Inasmuch as he did not while Atty. Gen., I expect he’ll make good on his promise. Similarly, candidate Kamala Harris said she also would not defend Prop. 8 if elected Atty. Gen. As of this writing, she’s ahead of Steve Cooley (who said he would defend Prop 8) by 30,997 votes.

Christopher Eberz

November 16th, 2010

Thanks Franck, I didn’t, and I guess I still don’t quite understand why they’re spending time arguing the merits of the issue when at the same time that they’re arguing whether or not they have the standing to argue the merits of the issue?

Matt

November 16th, 2010

December cannot come fast enough.

mattymatt

November 16th, 2010

And then what? Is the whole thing going to last just one day, and then the court rules?

Stefan

November 17th, 2010

They will likely rule by February. I expect it to be pretty much done then, since nobody from the state will appeal the decision.

Jon

November 17th, 2010

This is actually more time than is usually allowed for oral argument on appeal (at least at the intermediate level). I clerked at the 3rd Circuit, where typically a panel hears 5 or so cases in a day, and a total of 30 minutes (15 minutes per side) is allowed for argument of each case. A total of hour on standing and an hour on the merits is enormous.

In terms of process — immediately after argument, the judges will convene, discuss the case, and then cast their preliminary votes. The judges on the winning side will then decide which of them will write the primary opinion. That judge (and his/her clerks) will spend time drafting that opinion, and it will then be circulated to the other judges for review. If there’s a judge on the losing side who wants to write a dissent, that will also add some time. After circulation of the opinions, they’ll be revised and recirculated until everyone agrees it says what it needs to say. Only then will the result be announced and the opinion(s) published.

It’s very possible that the judges will decide that none of the appellants have standing, in which case the opinions will only address that question. Only if they decide there is standing will they also address the merits of the case.

justsearching

November 18th, 2010

A flagging feature for those who are clearly trolls would be nice.

As for the trial, from the perspective of the Christian anti-gay portion of the right, either justice and truth will win out or liberal activist judges will enforce their views on the populace.

Timothy Kincaid

November 18th, 2010

UPDATE:

The Plaintiffs (our side) have requested revisions to the schedule, so there may yet be changes.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Pope Francis: Church Must Apologize To Gay People, Others

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1952: Congress Bars Gay People From Immigrating

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1964: "Homosexuality In America"

Today In History, 1965: Gay Rights Advocates Picket the Civil Service Commission

Today In History, 2003: U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Nation's Sodomy Laws

Today In History, 2013: U.S. Supreme Court Declares Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.