Showing posts with label Perry v Schwarzenegger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Perry v Schwarzenegger. Show all posts
Jesse Jackson Endorses Marriage Equality!
Reverend Jesse Jackson endorse marriage equality for same-sex couples in a fiery speech on Monday morning before the assembled crowd to hear the oral arguments in Perry v Schwarzenegger.
Here is the text of the former presidential candidate's speech:
Many years ago in the late 1970s’, I visited South Africa, then deep in the throes of apartheid. I was asked by the media what I thought of the situation, and I said, “I believe in human rights for all human beings. We must measure human rights by one yardstick.” That principle – our moral center - still applies. Everything flows from this perspective.We stand together today as equal members of the human family…. as consistent principled advocates for human rights for all people. We stand together today to uphold the principles of due process, of equal protection under the law, of fighting against discrimination against any and all people based on race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.We stand with you today to support Marriage Equality, and to declare that Proposition 8 must be struck down as unconstitutional. Peoples’ right to self-expression, self-determination be respected and affirmed. It’s time to challenge ignorance, a time to break the silence and the chains of hatred, of divisive and discriminatory bigotry. Marriage is based on love and commitment – not on sexual orientation. I support the right for any person to marry the person of their choosing.If Dr. King and our civil rights movement has taught us anything, it’s the fundamental principle of that all people deserve Equal protection under the law. LGBT people deserve equal rights – including marriage equality – and equal protection under the law. Discrimination against one group of people is discrimination against all of us. The State – and the Courts - should not sanction discrimination.To those that believe in and fought for civil rights, that marched to end discrimination and win equality, you must not become that which you hated. It’s past time to exist in hypocrisy and ignorance, and time to come out of the shadows and darkness to support unequivocally, equality for all people. Those that support civil and human rights cannot, must not, become perpetrators of discrimination against others based upon race, religion, culture, sexual orientation.African Americans know too well the sting of legal, state sanctioned, constitutionally driven “second class” citizenship – from centuries of legal slavery and Jim Crow segregation, to classified as 3/5 of a human being in the U.S. Constitution, to facing anti-miscegenation laws that prevented Blacks from marrying whites.We cannot not sit idly by while Prop. 8 seeks to target gays and lesbians for a disfavored legal status, as America’s newest “second-class citizens.” Our legal scholars have cited fourteen times where the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. That principle must be upheld today – for Blacks and Whites, for straight and gay, for ALL Americans. No group of people should be denied their fundamental constitutional liberties, like equal protection under the law, simply because of who they are.So today, we do not stand alone. It’s time to go forward by hope and not backward by fear, to stand up with courage, hope and strength and send a shout out for equality. Stiff winds of resistance seek a return to intolerance, bigotry and state sanctioned discrimination – whether against immigrants in New Mexico or against marriage equality in California. It should only strengthen our resolve to defend equal protection under the law, equality for all Americans, and the forging of a One Big Tent America.Keep Hope Alive
Prop 8 Oral Arguments In Federal Court Today
There is excellent coverage all over the web, by Rex Wocker, Karen Ocamb, Joe Jervis and Chris Geidner, just to name a few.
These Three Men Will Decide Fate Of Proposition 8
 |  |  |
| Hawkins | Smith | Reinhardt |
The 3-member panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals who will hear oral arguments on Monday December 6th in the federal Proposition 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, has been announced. It consists of the most liberal member of the gigantic 26-member 9th Circuit, Hon. Stephen Reinhardt (appointed by Carter in 1980), a moderate jurist named Hon. Michael Daly Hawkins (appointed by Clinton in 1994) and a right-wing ideologue, N. Randy Smith (appointed by George W. Bush in 2007).
Most commenters think that the make-up of the panel indicates a likely 2-1 decision in favor of the good guys (supporters of marriage equality), which will probably get appealed to an 11-member panel of the 9th Circuit called an en banc panel. From there, it's direct to the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land.
Prop 8 Federal Appeal Will Be Televised On Dec. 6!
These facts have been known for awhile. The new information is that apparently the oral arguments in the Perry appeal will now be televised by C-SPAN and local channel KGO. This is a big deal, because the lower court was intended to be broadcast as well but the heterosexual supremacists defending Proposition 8 objected and appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court who overruled Judge Walker and banned the broadcasting of the oral arguments just days before the trial was scheduled to begin this past January.
Here are the details of the hearing on Monday, which will be in two 2-hour segments. The first session will be on whether the Proposition 8 propnents have "standing" to actually continue defending the statue, since the official parties to the lawsuit (the Governor and Attorney General) have refused to defend the voter-passed initiative in court. The second hour will be about the constitutionality of Proposition 8 itself.
The names of the judges who will hear the appeal have not been released yet. Whoever loses at this level will appeal to the United States Supreme Court, who may or may not accept the case.Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk:KKW): The Court orders that oral argument in these appeals be conducted in the following manner: The argument shall be divided into two hour-long sessions, with a brief recess in between. In the first hour, the parties shall address each appellant’s standing and any other procedural matters that may properly be raised. In the second hour, the parties shall address the constitutionality of Proposition 8.During the first hour, the Hollingsworth defendants-intervenors-appellants (“Proponents”) shall first have 15 minutes, and the Imperial County movants-appellants shall next have 15 minutes in which to present their opening arguments regarding standing and other procedural issues. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 30 minutes in which to respond. Any time reserved by either appellant may be used for rebuttal, but only one rebuttal argument may be made and that by either appellant.During the second hour, the Proponents shall first have 30 minutes to present their opening argument on the merits of the constitutional question. The Perry plaintiffs-appellees shall then have 15 minutes, and the plaintiff-intervenor-appellee City and County of San Francisco shall have the next 15 minutes, in which to respond. Any time reserved by the Proponents may be used for rebuttal.No later than November 24, 2010, the parties shall advise the Court of any objection they have to the allocation of time within each hour or of any reallocation of time within each hour that they wish to propose, by electronically filing letters with the Clerk of the Court. If any party wishes to give its full allotted time within either hour to an amicus curiae, it may request that the Court reallocate that time accordingly. Otherwise, no motions for leave to participate in oral argument by amici curiae will be entertained.. [7545517]
WATCH: Cynthia Nixon Kicks NOM Butt For Marriage Equality
At the New Yorker festival this weekend there was a panel with the odious Brian Brown of NOM, Cynthia Nixon (Miranda on Sex in the City) along with other notables like Perry v. Schwarzenegger super-lawyer David Boies making the case for and against same-sex marriage.
Nixon demolishes the argument that gay and lesbian couples who want to marry are seeking to "redefine marriage" by saying something like: "When women got the vote, it did not redefine voting. When African-Americans were able to sit at lunch counters and get served it did not redefine eating out. Opening up marriage to same-sex couples will not redefine marriage!"
Watch the video yourself to see what she said exactly.
10 States File Joint Brief Supporting Prop 8 Proponents
10 states have filed amicus briefs with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the behalf of the heterosexual supremacists who are defending Proposition 8 on appeal from the August 4th striking the gay marriage ban as unconstitutional. The ten states who signed the brief are: Wyoming, Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia.
Additionally, many other heterosexual supremacists groups such as PFOX and the Ethics and Public Policy Center have also filed briefs supporting Proposition 8 and "protecting traditional marriage."
For more info see the Courage Campaign's Prop8TrialTracker.com
Additionally, many other heterosexual supremacists groups such as PFOX and the Ethics and Public Policy Center have also filed briefs supporting Proposition 8 and "protecting traditional marriage."
For more info see the Courage Campaign's Prop8TrialTracker.com
WATCH: EQCA Tries To "Shame" Whitman and Cooley
In light of statements by Republican candidates Steve Cooley and Meg Whitman that they would defend any court ruling in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, Equality Califorina is launching the following television ads.
Whitman's gubernatorial opponent, Jerry Brown, is the current Attorney General and has refused to defend Proposition 8, as has current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris is running against Cooley for Attorney general and has said she would not defend Proposition 8 in court because she feel it is unconstitutional.
The ads are set to begin airing on Monday, September 27, and will run on the CNN, FOX and MSNBC affiliates in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego and Palm Springs metropolitan areas
Whitman's gubernatorial opponent, Jerry Brown, is the current Attorney General and has refused to defend Proposition 8, as has current Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris is running against Cooley for Attorney general and has said she would not defend Proposition 8 in court because she feel it is unconstitutional.
The ads are set to begin airing on Monday, September 27, and will run on the CNN, FOX and MSNBC affiliates in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego and Palm Springs metropolitan areas
CA Sup Ct Refuses To Force State To Appeal Prop 8
As I blogged about earlier in the week, the Pacific Justice Institute sued the Governor and Attorney General on Monday to attempt to force them to defend Proposition 8, but the 3rd District Court of Appeals rejected their argument. Now the state's highest court has also rejected their legal argument.
The court did not explain why it rejected the emergency petition filed by the Pacific Justice Institute. The institute had argued that the attorney general and governor were required to uphold all laws, including initiatives passed by voters.
Earlier Wednesday, lawyers for Attorney General Jerry Brown and Schwarzenegger filed letters with the court maintaining state officers have authority to choose which laws they challenge or defend in court.
"The governor, like any litigant, has complete discretion over his own litigation strategy, including whether or not to appeal an order," counsel Andrew Stroud wrote for Schwarzenegger. "Here, the governor exercised his discretion and decided not to file an appeal."
[...]
Schwarzenegger, who has been under pressure from fellow Republicans to appeal Walker's decision, has said he supports the judge's verdict. Brown, who is the Democratic nominee to succeed Schwarzenegger as governor, has said he cannot defend Proposition 8 because he agrees it is unconstitutional.
"Although it is not every day that the attorney general declines to defend a state law, the state Constitution or an initiative, he may do so because his oath requires him (to) support the United States Constitution as the supreme law of the law," Deputy Attorney General Tamar Pachter wrote on Brown's behalf Wednesday.
The coalition of conservative and religious groups that sponsored Proposition 8 has appealed Walker's ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But doubts have been raised about whether its members have authority to do so because as ordinary citizens, they are not responsible for enforcing marriage laws.
The 9th Circuit has said that is one of the issues it will take up when it hears oral arguments in early December.
If the federal appeals court dismisses the appeal because the ban's proponents lack legal standing, Walker's ruling would become final unless the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take up the case.All people interested in marriage equality will be watching the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals arguments very closely in this case. It would sort of be unfortunate f the case was decided on a relatively abstruse legal point like standing, instead of the very importantfederal constitutional issues raised in Walker's District Court opinion of August 4.
Appellate Court Rejects Attempt To Force Prop 8 Appeal
Recall that earlier this week heterosexual supremacists from the Pacific Justice Institute sued the Governor and Attorney General claiming that they were trying to avoid a "constitutional crisis" by forcing these elected officials to appeal Proposition 8 in federal court, even though both men have declared their belief that the measure violates the U.S. constitution.
On Thursday came word that their lawsuit was summarily rejected. by the 3rd District Court of Appeals:
On Thursday came word that their lawsuit was summarily rejected. by the 3rd District Court of Appeals:
The institute said it would file an immediate appeal to the state Supreme Court in hopes of getting a reversal by Sept. 11, the deadline for state action in the Prop. 8 case.
"When the people peacefully enact a constitutional provision and the attorney general refuses to give them meaningful review in the federal judiciary, then you have a veto by the executive branch," said the institute's lawyer, Kevin Snider. "That is a constitutional crisis, usurping the power of the people."The reason why this legal skirmish is important is that there is a very live question of who has "standing" (or legal authority) to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling declaring Proposition 8 violates the federal constitution. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the appeal the week of December 6th.
Homophobes Sue Schwarzenegger and Brown To Force Prop 8 Appeal
Word comes today that heterosexual supremacist losers in the Perry v Schwarzenegger lawsuit are seriously worried about not having standing to appeal the federal lawsuit, so they have sued the state defendants Attorney General Jerry Brown and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in state court in an attempt to force them to defend Proposition 8.
Equality California's executive director Geoff Kors said:
Brown has said both in legal filings and public statements that he has sworn to uphold the state and federal constitutions and therefore can not defend Proposition 8 because he thinks it is an unconstitutional violation of gay Californians' civil rights.
"The attorney general does not believe that he can be forced to prosecute an appeal of a decision with which he agrees," Brown spokeswoman Christine Gasparac said Tuesday.
In seeking to make the state file an appeal, Pacific Justice Institute is trying to address the possibility that the case might get short-circuited before the 9th Circuit can consider if Proposition 8 passes constitutional muster.Most experts think that it is very doubtful that a state court will attempt to compel another branch of government to defend a federal lawsuit.
Equality California's executive director Geoff Kors said:
“This is an outrageous attempt to try and force elected officials who have sworn to uphold the United States Constitution to defend a law that the Federal Court has found to be unconstitutional. It demonstrates their acknowledgement that the proponents of Proposition 8 lack standing to appeal, that the case should be dismissed and loving same-sex couples should be allowed to exercise their constitutional right to marry.”
9th Circuit Issues Stay On Perry; Expedites Appeal
Today, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a.k.a. "The Prop 8 case" which means that same-sex couples will not be marrying in California any time soon.The decision overturn's Judge Vaughn Walker's denial of a stay last Thursday of his previous landmark decision issued last Thursday. The 9th Circuit also set an expedited schedule for the court, setting a trial date for the week of December 6th, 2010.
Here's the order at the special website the 9th circuit has set up for the case:
“Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED. The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal. This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California.The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
There are several significant part of this one-page ruling. 1) Having a federal appellate trial less than 4 months away is incredibly fast for appellate litigation. The Prop 8 proponents have to file their brief by September 17th (1 month away) and our side a month after that and then the bad guys get to respond two weeks later and then oral arguments commence two weeks after that. There is no time frame as to how long after oral arguments the 9th Circuit will issue its ruling,, but it is signalling that it wants to dispose of the case quickly. 2) The last sentence asking for a discussion (see students, it's an essay prompt!) about why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of standing is also a plus on our side.
Freedom To Marry Returns To California...August 18
The Freedom to Marry returns to California...soon. There are multiple (unconfirmed) reports that Judge Vaughn Walker has lifted the stay on his decision striking down Proposition 8.
Judge Walker's Final Order Lifting Stay on Prop 8 Ruling
The official word is now that the judge has indeed ruled that the losers in Perry v. Schwarzenegger are denied a motion for stay but has stayed his own decision in this matter until Wednesday August 18th at 5pm.
Judge Walker's Final Order Lifting Stay on Prop 8 Ruling
CA GOV and CA AG Oppose Stay in Prop 8 Case
The State of California filed motions today opposing a stay in Judge Vaughn Walker's landmark decision ruling Proposition 8 unconstitutional; in other words Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown are on record saying they want same-sex couples to be able to get married while the decision is on appeal.
As governor, Schwarzenegger is named as a defendant in the case, although he remained neutral in the lawsuit challenging Proposition 8. The governor was against the initiative when it was on the ballot and chose not to defend the constitutional amendment in court. He filed his brief Friday in his role as a named defendant and on behalf of two other administration officials.
The Schwarzenegger administration contended in the brief that there is no governmental or public interest in continuing a ban on gay marriage after Walker's decision." Instead, the administration said that allowing such marriages to resume would further the state's interest in recognizing the rights of gays and lesbians. It also said that there would be no administrative burden for the state to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. California issued 18,000 such licenses before passage of Proposition 8.
Schwarzenegger applauded Walker's decision earlier this week.
"For the hundreds of thousands of Californians in gay and lesbian households who are managing their day-to-day lives, this decision affirms the full legal protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves," the governor said in a statement Wednesday.
California Attorney General Jerry Brown, a Democrat, filed a similar motion. Brown had argued that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional when the measure went before the California Supreme Court last year.
Read Attorney General's motion below.
Federal Prop 8 Decision TOMORROW!
The American Foundation for Equal Rights has announced that the decision in the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger will be released tomorrow, Wednesday August 4th (Barack Obama's 49th birthday!)Federal district court judge Vaughn Walker is widely expected to strike down Proposition 8, but his reasoning and the extent of his ruling should be very interesting. Ted Olson and David Boies were the attorneys for the plaintiffs.
UPDATE TUESDAY 08/03/2010 6:41PM
The decision will be released electronically on the federal court's website between 1pm and 3pm on Wednesday August 4th.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
