Comments on: Prop 8: Tomorrow, action in Perry v. Brown is expected; here’s what could happen

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 23:41:55 +0000

It just means that a larger panelof the 9th Circuit (w/11 judges) won't be reviewing the earlier decision of the 3-judge panel which struck down Prop 8. Whether someone thinks this is good or bad for us depends on what that person thinks a larger panel might do with the case.

But whatever that might have been, it would have meant yet another level of appeal and yet more delay in a final resolution to this case. So, in that sense, it's good that they denied the request for en banc review. There is now just one more possible appeal left to the Proponents of Prop 8: the U.S. Supreme Court.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 23:10:05 +0000

Ah, thanks for the clarification. The use of quotations marks was confusing; you closed quotes in the first paragraph of the reference, opened but didn't close quotes in the second paragraph and used double quotes for an interior quote. So I was having trouble following which part of your post was you speaking and which part was you quoting some other source.

Again, thanks for clarifying.

By: Str8Grandmother

Str8Grandmother — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:05:38 +0000

No no not me studying, that was a quote from a comment I read on Towle Road. I Put quotes around it. It was the commenter saying s/he learned it as rational basis with bite in school. I gave the link to where you could read the whole comment.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 20:49:34 +0000

What were you studying in school that taught you the term "rational basis with bite"? Also, I hadn't realized you'd gone to school later in life – I seem to recall you're just a few years younger than I am. Just curious in what context this would have come up in something you were studying. Very few people except law students have reasons to study terms like this.

By: sher

sher — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:20:31 +0000

Please tell me in laymans terms…what does it mean that it was denied? Is this a good thing for LGBT or bad?? Sorry….I do not understand all the legal terminology.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 02:39:26 +0000

It's one thing to be a Devil's Advocate; it's quite another to be a wet blanket. Wooledge ALWAYS finds the worst case scenario, and extols that scenario, but never explains how to not 'fall into the trap' of that worst case scenario.

The purpose of a Devil's Advocate is to find and bring up the worst case scenario. Wooledge appears to do that well. Wooledge forgets the second part of the job of a Devil's Advocate – namely explaining how to avoid that worst case scenario.

Oh, and as I attempted to explain above, it was not a joke, but an expression of my feelings about Wooledge.

By: Str8Grandmother

Str8Grandmother — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:09:59 +0000

I am describing what the 1 Circuit Court said,
"The opponents of section 3 point to selected comments from a few individual legislators; but the motives of a small group cannot taint a statute supported by large majorities in both Houses and signed by President Clinton. Traditions are the glue that holds society together, and many of our own traditions rest largely on belief and familiarity–not on benefits firmly provable in court. The desire to retain them is strong and can be honestly held. For 150 years, this desire to maintain tradition would alone have been justification enough for almost any statute. This judicial deference has a distinguished lineage, including such figures as Justice Holmes, the second Justice Harlan, and Judges Learned Hand and Henry Friendly. But Supreme Court decisions in the last fifty years call for closer scrutiny of government action touching upon minority group interests and of federal action in areas of traditional state concern"

I have figured this out to be an extra close Rational Basis/Scrutiny or what others have called Rational Basis with Bite or Rational Basis Plus .
href="http://www.towleroad.com/2012/05/waldmananalysisdoma.html"
"Tenth Amendment, these federalism concerns further support the more searching form of review of rational basis plus"

"Great summary. Though I prefer the term I was taught in school, "rational basis with bite." Like an equal protection werewolf.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:35:05 +0000

One correction:

The first conference day for SCOTUS is actually September 24, not October 5. Advance all time frames up two weeks. (It sometimes pays to read 'the fine print' – VBG)

In reality, though, the only way SCOTUS would make a decision before the election would be to deny cert. But remember, they likely will have the DOMA case appealed to them, and may want to tackle that case (as it easily could directly affect people nationwide), but Perry only directly affects California.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:03:51 +0000

Are you saying that rational basis review "with bite" is call "Rational Review"? If so, you are incorrect. "Rational basis review" is sometimes referred to as simply "rational review." That is, "rational basis review" and "rational review" are synonymous.

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » BREAKING: 9th Circuit DENIES request to re-hear Prop 8 case

Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:11:10 +0000

[...] Prop 8: Tomorrow, action in Perry v. Brown is expected; here’s what could happen [...]