# California Supreme Court Ruling on Proposition 8 (SSM) **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [May 22, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306 "2009-05-22T16:29:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/141 "2010-08-05T17:24:11Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > > [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > > > Fingers crossed. > > Exhale, **olives** , it’ll take a year or two for this to play out. 😉 I know, which is totally why I need to not think about it too much. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/142 "2010-08-05T17:34:20Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > The next step is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, then the U.S. Supreme Court. Whoops! Forgot that step. But it’s almost a formality. There is not much chance that the 9th Circuit will disagree with today’s decision. ---
**Author:** ![MN\_Maenad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e95f7d/32.png) [@MN\_Maenad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MN_Maenad)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/143 "2010-08-05T17:38:19Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > Actually this ruling was for district court. The next step is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, then the U.S. Supreme Court. But you’re right about it being a great day. Ah, thanks. I got the wires crossed in my brain. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/144 "2010-08-05T17:39:28Z")
FYI, a ruling in the 9th Circuit is binding only in the 9th Circuit ([map](http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx)), not nation-wide. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2010, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/145 "2010-08-05T18:12:47Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > FYI, a ruling in the 9th Circuit is binding only in the 9th Circuit ([map](http://www.uscourts.gov/court_locator.aspx)), not nation-wide. As an aside, I just noticed the 6th Cir. includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. I bet that makes for an interesting bench. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/146 "2010-08-12T17:57:39Z")
Were going to get a ruling on the stay within the hour. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/147 "2010-08-12T19:59:50Z")
SSM can resume in Califorina! Sort of. The stay is in effect until August 18th. SS Marriages cannot start until then. In the mean time, the Appeals Court can issue an Emergency Stay that lasts until they decide. The actual ruling: [https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/0...stay\_order.pdf](https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/0...stay_order.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/148 "2010-08-12T22:34:31Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > For now it’s a temporary stay but expect it to remain. I’m very glad you were wrong about this prediction. 🙂 Reading the text of the ruling is absolutely hilarious! Judge Walker absolutely _eviscerated_ proponents! He showed they had absolutely no way of showing they’d be likely to succeed on the merits, that there would be absolutely no substantial injury to “other interested parties”, and that there was no public interest in the stay. But my absolute favorite part was where he showed that proponents would not _themselves_ suffer any irreparable injury if the stay was lifted: “Proponents have not, however, alleged that any of them seek to wed a same-sex spouse.” Bwaaahahahaha!! > [@hajario](#): > > te= > > Next step, as others have said, is the 9th Circuit. This Court is notoriously liberal and they almost for sure will uphold the ruling. Either way, it will be appealed to the Supremes and that’s a crap shoot assuming that the Court stays the same as it will be later today when Kagan gets her new job. > > The Supreme Court can refuse to hear the appeal in which case the 9th’s ruling stands. Odd are that they’ll hear it. > > Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia will likely vote anti-SSM using whatever logic necessary. > > Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer will likely vote pro-SSM using whatever logic necessary but correctly in my opinion. > > Barring any surprises, it’s down to Kennedy. Judge Walker was well aware of this and he pretty much wrote his whole opinion to that end. He cited Kennedy fifteen times when arguing various parts of his ruling. There’s a nice analysis of that [here](http://www.slate.com/id/2262766/). I’m betting it will be a 8/1 decision. You’re right that Judge Walker wrote his initial ruling so that Kennedy would look a fool to rule in opposition to himself. But don’t forget that the attorney who is arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs is conservative Ted Olson, who successfully argued Bush v Gore. Watch him _own_ Chris Wallace on Faux Noise. . . > **[\- YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/v/nkU9n5GxCDk)** > > Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/149 "2010-08-12T22:47:48Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > I’m very glad you were wrong about this prediction. 🙂 Me too. The Appeals Court could still issue an emergency stay in the next week. What would be very interesting is if this doesn’t even get to the 9th. There is the whole issue of standing. Since the Governor and Attorney General have no interest in appealing the decision, it may be that no one else has standing to even appeal in the first place. That means that the ruling stands and can’t get to the Supremes. It will only stand in California. If it is found that someone has standing, it works like this. There are 22 justices on the 9th Circuit. A computer randomly chooses three of them to hear the appeal. Although the 9th is very liberal, there are some conservative judges and luck is a factor. No matter which way the three judges decide, the entire panel of 22 can overturn their decision by a majority vote. If they uphold Judge Walkers decision, it will stand in the entire 9th Circuit. Look out Montana and Idaho! After that, the SCOTUS can decide to hear the case. ---
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/150 "2010-08-12T22:49:55Z")
It’s really difficult to know what to hope for, here. On the one hand, if the analysis that the Prop 8 folks have no Article III standing to appeal turns out to be true, it means no appeal, and a (final) victory for folks in California. The idea of that makes me tremendously happy. However, it also means that nothing changes on a national level, and that gays in other states continue to lack rights. I can’t bring myself to actually _hope_ for a Supreme Court ruling because I just feel like a negative ruling would set everyone back decades. But I also think it will be decades before the rest of the states come around on their own. **Shayna** , that was also my favorite part of the order, as well. I read the 138-page decision when it came out, and he had a number of gems in there as well. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/151 "2010-08-12T22:56:48Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > > [@Shayna](#): > > > > I’m very glad you were wrong about this prediction. 🙂 > > Me too. The Appeals Court could still issue an emergency stay in the next week. > > What would be very interesting is if this doesn’t even get to the 9th. There is the whole issue of standing. Since the Governor and Attorney General have no interest in appealing the decision, it may be that no one else has standing to even appeal in the first place. That means that the ruling stands and can’t get to the Supremes. It will only stand in California. > > If it is found that someone has standing, it works like this. There are 22 justices on the 9th Circuit. A computer randomly chooses three of them to hear the appeal. Although the 9th is very liberal, there are some conservative judges and luck is a factor. No matter which way the three judges decide, the entire panel of 22 can overturn their decision by a majority vote. If they uphold Judge Walkers decision, it will stand in the entire 9th Circuit. Look out Montana and Idaho! > > After that, the SCOTUS can decide to hear the case. Well the appeal to the 9th has already been filed. I _seriously_ doubt they’ll refuse to hear it due to a lack of standing. I think we’re going all the way, baby! ---
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/152 "2010-08-12T23:02:06Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > I _seriously_ doubt they’ll refuse to hear it due to a lack of standing. I’m curious about why you feel that way? It’s not a minor legal hurdle for them at all. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2010, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/153 "2010-08-12T23:17:51Z")
> [@Asimovian](#): > > > [@Shayna](#): > > > > I _seriously_ doubt they’ll refuse to hear it due to a lack of standing. > > I’m curious about why you feel that way? It’s not a minor legal hurdle for them at all. > [@](#): > > [Page Not Found](http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000472) > > **Perry v. Schwarzenegger** > > Challenge to “Proposition 8” > 10-16696 (Main appeal) > 10-16751 (Intervenor appeal) > > “ **Due to the level of interest in this case, this site has been created** to notify the media and public of procedures and rules for admission to proceedings, as well as access to case information.” That’s why. No way they’ll refuse a case with this “level of interest”. The Supremes aren’t obligated to hear it, either. Do you think they’ll decline? No way. Neither will the 9th. ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/154 "2010-08-13T00:09:13Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > That’s why. No way they’ll refuse a case with this “level of interest”. > > The Supremes aren’t obligated to hear it, either. Do you think they’ll decline? No way. Neither will the 9th. I’ll fully admit that I am not a legal scholar, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t decline. It’s my understanding that if the higher court feels that the lower court has already made a reasonable decision, they will decline, no matter the level of interest. I mean, they’re not looking for publicity and the chance to try and retry a case over and over again just because people are interested in it, they’re looking for an sound legal decision. At least, I \*hope \*that’s how the courts work. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/155 "2010-08-13T00:21:50Z")
> [@Kyla](#): > > I’ll fully admit that I am not a legal scholar, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t decline. It’s my understanding that if the higher court feels that the lower court has already made a reasonable decision, they will decline, no matter the level of interest. I mean, they’re not looking for publicity and the chance to try and retry a case over and over again just because people are interested in it, they’re looking for an sound legal decision. > > At least, I \*hope \*that’s how the courts work. That’s what the appeals process is _for_. How can they make a decision on a lower court’s ruling if they don’t _hear_ the case? I know it’s not a popularity contest to the courts. Nor is this Great Debates. I’m just giving my **opinion** that the 9th Circuit will hear this case. One doesn’t need to be a legal scholar to speculate about that based on even the flimsiest of evidence, such as the fact that they’ve already set up a web page because this issue is extremely important to a huge number of people. It is my feeling that they will very much want to weigh in on this one, and that’s why. Feel free to disagree. ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/156 "2010-08-13T01:06:12Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > > [@Kyla](#): > > > > I’ll fully admit that I am not a legal scholar, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t decline. It’s my understanding that if the higher court feels that the lower court has already made a reasonable decision, they will decline, no matter the level of interest. I mean, they’re not looking for publicity and the chance to try and retry a case over and over again just because people are interested in it, they’re looking for an sound legal decision. > > > > At least, I \*hope \*that’s how the courts work. > > That’s what the appeals process is _for_. How can they make a decision on a lower court’s ruling if they don’t _hear_ the case? The judges read the rulings and decide that the lower court’s ruling is acceptable. It’s unnecessary for them to hear the case again. That’s why the Supreme Court declines to hear cases all the time, because the justices feel that the lower court’s decision is correct. They don’t need to hear it argued again. It is my understanding that this is what happened with the case for same sex marriage in Massachusetts. The US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal after the case against SSM was thrown out by the MA Supreme Court, thus implying that they were leaving this issue up to the states. That is why I would be surprised if this case goes all the way to the USSC. Um…I’m out of my depth here, so actual lawyers are welcome to jump in and correct me if I’m getting anything wrong. ETA: I don’t know anything about the 9th Circuit, so I have no opinion on whether or not they will hear the case. ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/157 "2010-08-13T01:06:46Z")
I’m torn between wanting the 9th to deny standing to the yes on 8 folks, thus ending this for CA and having it go all the way where we could either completely lose or win it for everyone in the country. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/158 "2010-08-13T03:56:21Z")
> [@Kyla](#): > > The judges read the rulings and decide that the lower court’s ruling is acceptable. It’s unnecessary for them to hear the case again. That’s why the Supreme Court declines to hear cases all the time, because the justices feel that the lower court’s decision is correct. They don’t need to hear it argued again. > > It is my understanding that this is what happened with the case for same sex marriage in Massachusetts. The US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal after the case against SSM was thrown out by the MA Supreme Court, thus implying that they were leaving this issue up to the states. > > That is why I would be surprised if this case goes all the way to the USSC. > > Um…I’m out of my depth here, so actual lawyers are welcome to jump in and correct me if I’m getting anything wrong. > > ETA: I don’t know anything about the 9th Circuit, so I have no opinion on whether or not they will hear the case. Not that CNN is a respected legal journal, but. . . > [@](#): > > . . . The next step will be for the losing side to file a “merits” appeal with the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, asking it to essentially decide whether the judge’s ruling was proper. > > . . . > > After the 9th Circuit court rules, lawyers have the option of asking the Supreme Court to intervene, likely the next step instead of the larger “en banc” panel. > > The nine justices on the Supreme Court, **unlike lower courts** , have the discretion to deny hearing the case. > > . . . > > [Proposition 8: Long road to the Supreme Court - CNN.com](http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/prop.8.next/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/159 "2010-08-13T17:00:02Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > Not that CNN is a respected legal journal, but. . . > > > [@](#): > > > > . . . The next step will be for the losing side to file a “merits” appeal with the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, asking it to essentially decide whether the judge’s ruling was proper. > > > > . . . > > > > After the 9th Circuit court rules, lawyers have the option of asking the Supreme Court to intervene, likely the next step instead of the larger “en banc” panel. > > > > The nine justices on the Supreme Court, **unlike lower courts** , have the discretion to deny hearing the case. > > > > . . . > > > > [Proposition 8: Long road to the Supreme Court - CNN.com](http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/prop.8.next/index.html) Ah, thanks! Ignorance fought. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2010, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306/160 "2010-08-13T17:07:18Z")
BTW, when SCOTUS denies to hear a case, it says nothing about what SCOTUS thinks of the merits of the lower court ruling. The only message to be taken from a denial is, “We don’t want to hear this case right now.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-supreme-court-ruling-on-proposition-8-ssm/497306.md?page=9)