Why would a federal court be required to uphold a right granted solely under a state constitution?
ISTM that “not being a deal-breaker” is functionally equivalent to “didn’t care.”
Even if you don’t agree that they are (were) functionally equivalent, it’s not that big a leap to get from one to the other.
A fairly clear and concise statement.
I’m not much of one for reading SCOTUS decisions on the hoof, as it were. Does anyone have a brief summary of the dissenters’ arguments in favor of granting standing?
(1) The California Supreme Court said they had standing and federal courts should defer to California courts as to California’s standing requirements.
(2) If they didn’t grant standing the case could never be decided on its merits.
The ruling addresses that, and determined that the state court erred in granting the appellees standing;
[QUOTE=Justice Roberts]
After the District Court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional and enjoined the state officials named as defendants from enforcing it, however, the inquiry under Article III changed. Respondents no longer had any injury to redress—they had won—and the state officials chose not to appeal.
The only individuals who sought to appeal that order were petitioners, who had intervened in the District Court. But the District Court had not ordered them to do or refrain from doing anything. To have standing, a litigant must seek relief for an injury that affects him in a “personal and individual way.” Defenders of Wildlife, supra, at 560, n. 1. He must possess a “direct stake in the outcome” of the case. Arizonans for Official English, supra, at 64 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, however, petitioners had no “direct stake” in the outcome of their appeal. Their only interest in having the District Court order reversed was to vindicate the constitutional validity of a generally applicable California law…
…Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
[/QUOTE]
It was decided on its merits in the district court. The Supreme Court’s ruling here leaves the finding of the district court, which overturned Prop 8 in its entirety, intact.
I’m responding to post 43.
And I responded to post 44.
Um, ok. You go!
Thanks very much, both of you! 
No.
There’s a key difference. Notice how you simply refer to “laws passed by legislatures?”
But that’s not what Scalia says, is it?
Here’s a quiz, Musicat: what’s the difference between the federal government’s powers and those of a state government?
Answer:
[spoiler]The federal government’s powers are listed in the Constitution. It has no power, expect that which the Constitution gives it. Its powers are supreme where it has them, but those powers are also limited to only those things the Constitution says.
A state government has plenary power. It has no list of powers – it may legislate on any topic, in any area, except areas where the federal government’s powers or legislation interferes.
So there’s a huge difference in the legislatures involved here. Do you see that?
Do you understand the difference between state and federal power?[/spoiler]
If a majority of voters pass a law, and the governor refuses to defend it in court, it seems pretty clear to me that the governor has the power to veto any popularly-passed referendum.
Is that your understanding as well?
The governor did not refuse to defend it in court. He refused to appeal the adverse decision.
The governor did his duty. They fought it, lost, and accepted it.
I agree with the standing decision, but it is troubling that a state can enact a referendum process, but then be free not to stand by the decision of the voters (putting aside the subject of that referendum for a minute). I don’t think it is necessarily a federal question, but the feds have stepped in for much smaller state encroachments than this.
A citizen of any state has been denied due process when a state sets up a process that purportedly gives him the power to vote to enact laws, but the executive officials refuse to defend the laws in court. Yes, I know the remedy is to impeach the governor or AG, or elect a new governor or AG, but that is a paper tiger because most people aren’t dedicated one issue voters.
It’s an interesting thing to discuss.
What does a governor do when they disagree with a referendum and agree with the court’s decision? Do they defend it halfheartedly? Do they hire the best advocate that they can for the other side and have them do it?
What if a governor disagrees with the court as far as their personal feelings but knows for certain that an appeal will fail because there are clear Constitutional issues and they don’t want to waste State funds on a fool’s errand?
Not necessarily. In some other case, someone besides the governor could come along who has standing to sue. Someone who suffers some actual harm by the referendum not going into effect.
That cannot happen in this case because there is no possible injury to anyone from the existence of same-sex marriages.
What has that got to do with my statement?
Mine is a conditional hypothetical about a potential future referendum.
Yeah, the implications seem to scream danger, but ultimately it just reinforced the fact that gay marriage is not a threat to anyone. With other laws, you will have victims. There are no victims in gay marriage, only a bunch of whiny conservatives crying about how they don’t get to use their religion to force their lifestyle onto other people
It won’t happen. Real laws that address a real problem will have real victims. There are none in gay marriage
Sure, in some cases, a particular referendum’s not going into effect might create standing for someone else.
But when the subject is more general – say, a referendum that amends the state constitution to limit the terms of state legislators to no more than ten consecutive years. The people pass it, and some aggrieved legislator sues to declare it unconstitutional. The governor fails to appear to defend it, conceding the issues at trial.
In such a circumstance, it seems the governor has effective veto power over the popular referendum process. Yes?
It was unclear that you were speaking in the abstract.