I know, which is totally why I need to not think about it too much.
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.
Ah, thanks. I got the wires crossed in my brain. 
FYI, a ruling in the 9th Circuit is binding only in the 9th Circuit (map), 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.
Were going to get a ruling on the stay within the hour.
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
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!!
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. . .
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.
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.
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!
I’m curious about why you feel that way? It’s not a minor legal hurdle for them at all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not that CNN is a respected legal journal, but. . .
Ah, thanks! Ignorance fought.
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.”