Comments on: In Pedersen v. OPM, challenging DOMA, judge denies House Republicans’ request for stay of proceedings

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » Justice Department appeals Pedersen v. OPM, challenging Section 3 of DOMA, to the Second Circuit

Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:34:15 +0000

[...] Section 3 of DOMA was struck down in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, a case filed in federal district court in Connecticut. The decision came after the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), who is defending the law, asked the judge to stay the proceedings in the case in light of Windsor v. USA, a case that’s currently on appeal to the Second Circuit. The judge denied the request. [...]

By: Nikhil

Nikhil — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:55:25 +0000

Neal, you are quick to insult pepole you don’t even know. The petitioners are finer pepole that you could ever hope to be. I appreciated their effort to get the issue before the voters. Too bad the email evidence was not a bit stronger in implicating Lover and Cawley since the rolling quorum was evidenced by the budget committee vote. You will never convince me the whole thing was not orchestrated and implemented by Bruce Smith. Now we have to put up with another two years of Ensey’s insolence yuk!

By: Prop 8 Trial Tracker » DOMA ruled unconstitutional in Connecticut case Pedersen v. OPM

Tue, 31 Jul 2012 19:49:31 +0000

[...] while another DOMA case, Windsor v. USA, was pending appeal in the Second Circuit. Judge Bryant rejected the stay, concluding that stay issued so many months after the case was fully briefed and ready for a [...]

By: BLAG Request to Stop DOMA Challenge Denied « MasterAdrian's Weblog

BLAG Request to Stop DOMA Challenge Denied « MasterAdrian's Weblog — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 00:14:22 +0000

[...] to Prop 8 Trial Tracker, which first reported on the order, Judge Bryant wrote that BLAG “failed to sustain its burden to [...]

By: Gregory in SLC

Gregory in SLC — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 20:07:58 +0000

: D !

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:22:58 +0000

The Advocate's article on the order cites Scottie's post here at P8TT as the first to report the story. Way to go, Scottie!
http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equalit…

By: Scottie Thomaston

Scottie Thomaston — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:50:14 +0000

I'm not sure it necessarily means the decision will be in favor of the plaintiffs. At this point, the case has been fully briefed and it is ready for a decision. We've all just been waiting on the judge to issue it. It would be really strange for the judge to refuse a decision after spending so much time working on the case up to this point.

By: Scottie Thomaston

Scottie Thomaston — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:47:55 +0000

This would be my guess too based on reading the petitions. Seems like they wanted heightened scrutiny included in the review.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:27:20 +0000

they're working on it,,,,, good to know,,,, and a stay would cause further harm to plaintiffs,,,, sounding good

By: kevtrsk

kevtrsk — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:23:25 +0000

It appears the decision is in favor of the plaintiffs. otherwise there would be no reason not to stay the proceedings in this matter. It also appears that BLAG is aware they do not have a case so they are seeking to drag it out to the end.