The Prop 8 Appeals Court Panel: Bad In The Long Run?

Jim Burroway

November 29th, 2010

As we reported earlier today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has announced the panel of judges that will 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. Many believe that the panel will be inclined to uphold Judge Walker’s decision. Focus On the Family went so far as to call the panel “stacked against marriage protection.”

The Ninth Circuit however is just a way-station on the way to the ultimate stop, the Supreme Court. Orin Kerr, posting on the Volokh Conspiracy, worries about Judge Reinhardt’s presence on the panel:

Reinhardt writes like there is no Supreme Court, and as a result his opinions have a remarkable ability to annoy the Justices. In return, the Supreme Court loves to reverse Reinhardt. They love to reverse opinions he signs, and they love to reverse opinions he participates in.

Lucrece

November 29th, 2010

It could be a complete ultra-conservative panel, and it wouldn’t do a thing to shift the positions of the justices.

Scalia, Alito, and Thomas are obvious cons. Roberts is likely a vote for Prop 8 as well given his record.

That leaves 5 justices. Hopefully Kagan won’t recuse herself. Unlike the previous 4, these justices are real wild cards. Ginsburg is a pro-vote at least. I’m inclined to think Sotomayor is as well.

Ultimately, the sketchy votes are Kennedy and Kagan.

People who buy Olson/Boies’ florid rhetoric of being able to court both sides of the aisle are naive and don’t realize that such statement is just playing nice and warming up the court that will rule on your case.

David C.

November 29th, 2010

Dunno, hard to say. If the panel upholds the ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional, Prop 8 is toast in California and that’s the end of the road for Prop 8 proponents. The state of California has refused to defend the law and in all probability appellants have no standing. End of Prop 8, end of the road for this decision and SCOTUS doesn’t get a crack at it.

Bruno

November 29th, 2010

@David C.: Well the standing issue is going to be decided first. If they have no standing, I assume the question of unconstitutionality will be moot in regard to the 9th Circuit. Of course I’m sure they can appeal the standing issue to the SCOTUS and it’ll ultimately be up to Kennedy.

occono

November 30th, 2010

I don’t think Kagan would have any reason to recuse herself from this, as its not a Federal Law.

Regan DuCasse

November 30th, 2010

Since the Prop. 8 defenders had no evidence, their witnesses were MIA or unable to make their case, how is it possible that Prop. 8 can be upheld, even in a higher court?

There’s NOTHING to defend it! So if this is coming down to HOW Prop. 8 got put on the ballot (which was legal in itself), that still doesn’t make Prop. 8 legal.

Now is the question still going to be the Constitutionality of Prop. 8?

I’d say it’s unConstitutional on several points.

1. That a tyranny of a majority is in effect. And shouldn’t be.

2. It violates the 14th amendment

3. It violates the 10th amendment

4. How is it in the state’s interests to violate any amendment against a distinct minority like gay people?

5. The Constitution, for the first time enshrines discrimination, against it’s own creed of protection for free and responsible citizens.

There is a lot going on that compromises the integrity of the Constitution, if not marriage.
In the zeal to deny gay people it’s protections, the Constitution isn’t protected either.

And there is no good reason here, to do either.

gar

November 30th, 2010

I think the issue of standing, as in the lack thereof, will ultimately keep Perry from reaching the Sup. Ct.

stefan

November 30th, 2010

@gar
Exactly. The Supreme Court is known for being very strict with standing issues. Even if the 9th Circut rules that the proponents have standing, an appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue likely would reverse it.

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

Social Conservatives In Morelos Mobilize To Block Marriage Equality

Federal Court Re-opens Marriage Equality Case Over Mississippi's "Religious Freedom" Law

Morelos On the Cusp Of Enacting Marriage Equality

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

Today In History, 1969: Stonewall

Today In History, 1970: First Gay Pride Marches to Commemorate Stonewall

Today In History, 2000: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Boy Scouts' Gay Ban

Today In History, 2009: Fort Worth Police Raid the Rainbow Lounge

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.