Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Perry appellant judges announced

Timothy Kincaid

November 29th, 2010

Next Monday at 10:00 am, a panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear an appeal to Judge Walker’s decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that Proposition 8 is in violation of the US Constitution. That panel will consist of Judges Stephen Roy Reinhardt, Michael Daly Hawkins, and Norman Randy Smith.

The general consensus (from supporters and opponents of marriage equality) is that Reinhardt and Hawkins are likely to be sympathetic to the merits of the case, while Smith – a Republican whose entire education has been in Mormon institutions – may be less inclined to find that gay people are a class of people who were, in this instance, targeted for unconstitutional discrimination by (among others) the church to which he belongs.

The trial proceedings have also been amended. The first hour will be as previously announced, but the second hour will be:

  • 30 minutes for the Proponents
  • 20 minutes for the Perry plaintiffs-appellees, and
  • 10 minutes for the plaintiff-intervenor-appellee City and County of San Francisco.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Scott P.
November 29th, 2010 | LINK

Smith should do the honorable thing and recuse himself, but I’m not holding my breath!

Priya Lynn
November 29th, 2010 | LINK

Timothy said “The general consensus (from supporters and opponents of marriage equality) is…”

A consensus is a general opinion. A general consensus is a general general opinion.

cowboy
November 29th, 2010 | LINK

Interesting stroke of luck: N. Randy Smith being picked at random. This couldn’t have been better scripted for an Aaron Sorkin TV pseudo-drama.

Lindoro Almaviva
November 29th, 2010 | LINK

We already know these proceedings will be televised. Any chance that we get more information about that, including websites wherewe could watch?

Also, may suggest we gave a cybernetic meeting and we have either a chat or something? It would be nice to be around people more versed in law as we watch

Emily K
November 29th, 2010 | LINK

@cowboy couldn’t agree more.

So two “sensitive” judges and a Mormon one.

What does this mean for the case? Is it in jeopardy? Will Justice Smith- i dunno – “filibuster” in some way? Is that part of the protocol? I’m rather ignorant of this matter.

John in the Bay Area
November 29th, 2010 | LINK

Judges like not to decide things if there is another way out. I think that they will find that the appellants don’t have standing and dismiss the appeal on that basis.

cowboy
November 30th, 2010 | LINK

Laura on mormonsformarriage.com said:

Any judge worth his salt knows better than to judge civil law by the tenets of the Book of Mormon/Bible rather than by the requirements of the Constitution. It’s not like this is the first time they will have been asked to review a sticky moral-political issue, and if they feel they cannot sit in judgment without a conflict of interest they will step down and let another judge sit on in their stead. No judge wants her opinions overturned, especially on technicalities like bias, so it would make sense that a wise judge would avoid appearances of bias wherever they might rear their ugly heads.

I do know there are lawyers from the J. Reuben Clark Law School (BYU) who are on our side of this issue.

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.