Andy Pugno, the general counsel for ProtectMarriage, the authors of
California’s Prop 8, denounced the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s quick
rescinding of the stay on same-sex marriages in the state. Pugno whined
about the fact that the decision came without warning and without
giving his group the twenty-five days that they would normally have in
order to ask the US Supreme Court to reconsider the case.
Pugno griped that “This outrageous act tops off a chronic pattern of lawlessness, throughout this case, by judges and politicians hell-bent on thwarting the vote of the people to redefine marriage by any means, even outright corruption. The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means. If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed.”
Except, possibly not. The problem for Pugno and ProtectMarriage is they have no standing in the case, which means that they may not even have the right to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case again which means that the only legitimate people who have the right to appeal the case- Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris- are not going to do so and have already said they would not ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the case.
ProtectMarriage had, initially, seemed poised to try and get the ruling narrowed so that it only applied to the two plaintiff couples, but in the end, they seemed to have abandoned it any attempt due to legal uncertainty of their ability to do that, and the fact that Brown and Harris had vowed to block any attempts to do so because of the momentum pushing for an end to the ban on same-sex marriage.
Judge Vaughn Walker initially allowed ProtectMarriage to argue that Prop 8 was constitutional. This was his prerogative. However, it became trickier after that and while the Ninth allowed ProtectMarriage to appeal the case, the US Supreme Court ruled that ProtectMarriage did not have that right. They ordered the Ninth to vacate their ruling and restore Walker’s ruling in the Perry case to the fore meaning that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional.
Pugno griped that “This outrageous act tops off a chronic pattern of lawlessness, throughout this case, by judges and politicians hell-bent on thwarting the vote of the people to redefine marriage by any means, even outright corruption. The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means. If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed.”
Except, possibly not. The problem for Pugno and ProtectMarriage is they have no standing in the case, which means that they may not even have the right to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case again which means that the only legitimate people who have the right to appeal the case- Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris- are not going to do so and have already said they would not ask the Supreme Court to reconsider the case.
ProtectMarriage had, initially, seemed poised to try and get the ruling narrowed so that it only applied to the two plaintiff couples, but in the end, they seemed to have abandoned it any attempt due to legal uncertainty of their ability to do that, and the fact that Brown and Harris had vowed to block any attempts to do so because of the momentum pushing for an end to the ban on same-sex marriage.
Judge Vaughn Walker initially allowed ProtectMarriage to argue that Prop 8 was constitutional. This was his prerogative. However, it became trickier after that and while the Ninth allowed ProtectMarriage to appeal the case, the US Supreme Court ruled that ProtectMarriage did not have that right. They ordered the Ninth to vacate their ruling and restore Walker’s ruling in the Perry case to the fore meaning that Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional.
Comments