tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post3033262813158842992..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: California Supreme Court to Consider Constitutionality of Proposition 8A. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-74405323390447806852008-11-21T12:32:00.000-08:002008-11-21T12:32:00.000-08:00James, thank you for pointing that out. I neglecte...James, thank you for pointing that out. I neglected to account for the sentence in the order which precedes the one I had quoted.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-65600889256690985382008-11-21T12:18:00.000-08:002008-11-21T12:18:00.000-08:00Mr. Haley: Note that ProtectMarriage, the officia...Mr. Haley: Note that ProtectMarriage, the official sponsor of Proposition 8 was granted intervenor status. Thomasson's group was not the official sponsor of Proposition 8.<BR/><BR/>I quote from the ProtectMarriage press release:<BR/><BR/>"Sacramento, CA – The official proponents of Proposition 8 and ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, the campaign committee responsible for its enactment by voters today said it is “profoundly gratified” that the California Supreme Court granted all their requests by agreeing to accept original jurisdiction of three cases challenging the measure’s validity, granted their request to intervene in the cases as Real Parties in Interest, denied the request of others to delay implementation of Proposition 8, and refused to allow outside groups to directly participate in the litigation....<BR/><BR/><BR/>Also of key significance, the Court has granted the request of the proponents of the initiative and their campaign committee to intervene in the litigation as Real Parties in Interests. This ruling grants the backers of Prop. 8 full legal standing to submit written arguments and appear in oral argument before the Court.<BR/><BR/>“Granting the backers of Prop. 8 intervention in these cases means that voters can be certain that there will be a thorough and vigorous defense of Prop. 8, “Pugno said. “Voters will not have to solely depend on Attorney General Jerry Brown to defend the measure. Since the attorney general was an active opponent of Proposition 8, we did not want the fate of the measure to rest in his defense of it.”<BR/><BR/>The Court also denied the request of unrelated parties, including the Campaign for California Families (CCF), to intervene in the litigation. The proponents of Prop. 8 had asked the Court to deny CCF’s proposed intervention."Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11350108716366727511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-90541289088953778812008-11-19T21:49:00.000-08:002008-11-19T21:49:00.000-08:00Perpetua, the Court's order states: "The motions t...Perpetua, the Court's order states: "The motions to intervene . . . filed on November 10, 2008, by Campaign for California Families, are DENIED." The actions were brought by Karen L. Strauss, Robin Tyler, and the City and County of San Francisco. They named as defendants the State Registrar of Vital Statistics, the State itself, and other State officials like the Secretary of State. That is because those are the State agencies that will be required to enforce the terms of Proposition 8 if it is found to be good law. (The Secretary of State was dismissed from the action in S168066, most likely because his role in this matter is over, with the election results now official.)<BR/><BR/>They obviously did not name the group that put Prop. 8 on the ballot, because their work is also over---the measure made the ballot, and it was voted on. Nevertheless, Campaign for California Families sought leave to intervene in the cases, and the Court denied those motions, probably because they have no stake in how the measure is actually applied by the State, since they will play no further role in carrying out its terms.<BR/><BR/>That does not mean, however, that they will be denied the right to participate in any way in the case. The court has set January 15, 2009 as the deadline for anyone to file an application for leave to file a brief <I>amicus curiae,</I> as a "friend of the court." Such applications will be many in this case, and are usually granted. So my best guess is that is how Thomasson's group will be allowed to participate.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-30591154837729474332008-11-19T20:46:00.000-08:002008-11-19T20:46:00.000-08:00The Sac Bee story has this:"The campaign committee...The Sac Bee story has this:<BR/>"The campaign committee that pushed the measure said it is "profoundly gratified" that court granted its requests and refused to allow outside groups like Thomasson's to participate directly in the cases."<BR/><BR/>Does this mean that the organization that wrote the amendment is not being treated as a party and allowed to submit material for the hearing or make arguments?<BR/><BR/>If so, isn't that really terrible because Jerry Brown doesn't really support the measure?Perpetuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16632860530530786486noreply@blogger.com