Read ‘em, weep, laugh, and discuss: All 27 Prop 8 case amicus briefs filed in support of Appellants to the 9th Circuit
September 25, 2010
by Eden James
The byline on this post should be “Kathleen Perrin,” actually.
On the last day that amicus briefs could be filed in support of the Appellents, the amazing Kathleen spent her Friday night uploading all of them to Scribd and posting them in the comments to last night’s breaking news on Maj. Margaret Witt. Then she compiled them all and emailed them to me, as well as posting them on the Prop 8 Trial Trackers page on Facebook.
So, with some further adieu, below is the list of all
26 27 amicus briefs submitted in support of Appellants to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that is reviewing the Prop 8 decision by Judge Vaughn Walker. Amicus briefs for Plaintiffs will be due one week after plaintiffs’ answer brief is submitted. The due date for the plaintiffs’ answer brief is October 18.
You’ll notice a few of our, er, friends from the anti-equality crowd in the briefs. It’s a Who’s Who, from the National Organization for Marriage and NARTH to Concerned Women for America and the Pacific Justice Institute.
If folks are up for it, the community could crowdsource reading these briefs, for the benefit of all involved, following Alan E.’s lead on the FRC amicus brief. I know many of you already started diving in, as the voluminous 400-comments-and-counting Witt thread demonstrated, but if you would like go more in-depth, go ahead and divvy up the briefs in the comments, read them, analyze them and share your thoughts in the comments. Then we’ll post some of the most incisive commentary on the front page.
Jeremy Hooper got started on this one: 13 states, including Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming, filed a brief saying that Judge Walker “exceeded (his) judicial authority.”
UPDATE: NOM sent in a revised brief late last night and Kathleen just got it up on Scribd. She says the only differences she could find between the two documents is a revision on pg 33 (pdf pg 40), paragraph 1, and the inclusion of two pages in the replacement document not in the original: pdf pages 43 and 45, Certificates of Service and Compliance. If anyone finds additional differences, let her know:
All 26 amicus briefs, including the one above, are in the extended entry. Just click…
AMICUS BRIEFS FILED IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS:
Robert Wooten (not a brief, just an alleged motion for permission to file one)
Family Research Council
High Impact Leadership Coalition, et al
Western Law Center for Law & Policy on behalf of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Desert Stream Ministries
The Ethics and Public Policy Center
Liberty Counsel, Campaign for Children and Families, and JONAH, Inc.
American Center for Law and Justice
The Hausvater Project
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al.,
Robert P. George, Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson
NARTH (includes appellant Imperial County on cover page, though filed in Proponents’ case)
Pacific Justice Institute
States of Indiana, Virginia, Louisiana, Michigan, Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming
American College of Pediatricians
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
National Legal Foundation
Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund
Concerned Women of America
National Organization for Marriage, NOM Rhode Island, and Family Leader
Paul McHugh, M.D., John Hopkins University Distinguished Service Professor of Pyschiatry [sic]
American Civil Rights Union
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of Appellants Imperial County
UPDATE: Here’s one more:
Catholics for the Common Good