# Prop 8 trial update: Walker's ruling upheld **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 14, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500 "2011-06-14T22:31:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 47
**Author:** ![alphaboi867](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alphaboi867/32/3898_2.png) [@alphaboi867](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alphaboi867)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2011, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500/47 "2011-06-15T21:18:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I’m aware of the standing issue and how that works. > > But why would the court only overturn Prop 8 for CA? It would open the floodgates for the laws (or constitutional amendments) of each state to be brought individually to the SCOTUS to be decided, and there is no way the court is going to all a ban on SSM in some states and disallow that ban in other states. What a legal mess that would create. District Court rulings only create precendent within that judicial district. The ruling would also bind the parties to the case (in this case the State of California) even though CA includes territory outside the Northern District of California. If the 9th Circuit actually uphelds Perry v. Schwarzenegger then the ruling will apply to the entire 9th Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, Hawai’i, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, & Guam as well as CA). _At least_ one of those Attorneys-General is bound to object and take it before the Supreme Court. Now if they rule the Prop 8 sponsers don’t have standing then they never even address any of their arguments. It’s like the case was never appealed at all. And I feel confident in saying there’s zero-chance SCOTUS would overule the 9th Circuit _on the issue of standing_, they’re very much loath to expand the rules of standing for federal court cases. I also feel confident is saying that the Supreme Court of California isn’t going to answer the legal question certified to them in favour of Prop 8’s backers. There’s no statute in CA granting private citizens the right to defend laws in court, no legal precedent for it, and the state constitution expressly gives that duty to the Governor and the Attorney General. That same state constitution also provides 2 different mechanisms for the voters and/or the state legislature to deal with officers who do not perform their duties; neither of which has been or will be pursued in this case. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/prop-8-trial-update-walkers-ruling-upheld/585500)._