Comments on: En banc rehearings: What they mean for marriage equality in the Ninth Circuit and the First Circuit

By: NEWSFLASH: Another Marriage Equality Win in California! : Ms. Magazine Blog

NEWSFLASH: Another Marriage Equality Win in California! : Ms. Magazine Blog — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 23:16:27 +0000

[...] to invalidate the earlier ruling and to rehear the case en banc—that is, with an 11-judge panel (here‘s an explanation of what this would have meant). But the court judged that unnecessary [...]

By: peterplumber

peterplumber — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:30:00 +0000

What about the 6.5 million voters who voted NO on Prop 8? Won't they negate the same amount of YES voters? If so, then there are only 500,000 voters who are about to have their vote overturned.

By: MFargo

MFargo — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 20:26:32 +0000

Mostof of what Judge O'Scannlian has to say was addressed either by Judge Walker's ruling or Olson/Boies arguments at trial.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:30:07 +0000

These are not necessarily the only judges who voted to rehear. They're just the only ones who decided to put their name on their vote. All we know for sure is (1) a majority did not vote to rehear, (2) the way the named judges voted. There are a lot more judges in the 9th Circuit.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 18:23:17 +0000

I bet all hell would break loose if married PR gays received federal benefits before committed couples in CA and NY.

By: fRaNkLiN

fRaNkLiN — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:39:34 +0000

He got to use the word "firestorm".

By: fRaNkLiN

fRaNkLiN — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:38:16 +0000

53.41% of Colorado citizens voted for Amendment 2 in 1992. The Supreme Court wasted no time overturning their bigotry.

By: fRaNkLiN

fRaNkLiN — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:28:08 +0000

SMITH, O’SCANNLAIN, BYBEE and BEA would have voted to hear the case en banc because they are pissed off that Obama supports equal marriage and want to stick it to the gays.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:27:39 +0000

It does seem that O'Scannlain wasted his chance to write a persuasive dissenting opinion here…

By: Alan_Eckert

Alan_Eckert — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 17:18:08 +0000

The dissent reads just like a NOM statement. They got the key points in there:

"a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia;" "overruled the will of seven million CaliforniaProposition 8 voters;" "Judge N.R. Smith’s excellent dissenting opinion"