Comments on: Today’s Prop 8 Suit Hearing

By: Prop 8 Case Update: LGBT Groups Seek to Intervene « Law Dork, 2.0

Prop 8 Case Update: LGBT Groups Seek to Intervene « Law Dork, 2.0 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:03:15 +0000

[...] federal challenge to Proposition 8. The last we discussed the case here at Law Dork, Judge Walker granted intervenor status to the Prop 8 proponents and made it clear that his aim is to quickly decide this [...]

By: Zeppo

Zeppo — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:49:15 +0000

How is it that the federal court can even hear this case given that the Supreme Court of California has OKed Prop 8? If the litigants wanted SCOTUS to hear the case why not seek certiorari after the California ruling?

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:12:02 +0000

I did mention the judge’s questions in my Tuesday report on the judge’s order, and I think they are likely based off the Complaint and briefs filed by Brown and Schwarzenegger, as well as the brief filed by the ACLU/Lambda/NCLR. Remember that there has been no filing thus far by anyone supporting Prop 8. I’d be careful not to read too much into it at this point.

By: Chris in CA

Chris in CA — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:57:54 +0000

I’m with you Jim. These questions only reinforce the complaint.

By: Prup (aka Jim Benton)

Prup (aka Jim Benton) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:30:43 +0000

Chris: you don’t list the questions the judge has asked for evidence on, but Nan Hunter did. I know the questions a judge asks are not always the key to how the judge is thinking, but sometimes they are, and if they are, well, maybe our Californian friends shouldn’t start ordering supplies of rice and contacting wedding planners, but they can at least start thinking about where they want the ceremony.

Questions that include
“On the sex discrimination claim, the judge identified the question of “whether requiring one man and one woman in marriage promotes stereotypical gender roles.”
Relevant to the question of whether there was discriminatory intent behind Prop 8, the court may look into evidence of voters’ motivations, including advertisements.”

strike me as slam dunks for the plaintiffs and BIG trouble for the Prop 8 proponents.

Or am I letting my hopes get ahead of the evidence?