L.A. Times Refuses to Tell Readers That Gay Marriage Stay Was Approved by Panel Including Two Clinton-Appointed Judges
A little touch of bias for you in the L.A. Times article on the gay marriage stay:
The 9th Circuit panel, which legal analysts said included a conservative, a moderate and a liberal, also indicated that the court has serious questions about whether the Proposition 8 sponsors have legal authority to appeal Walker’s conclusions about the constitutionality of the ban.
No mention of who appointed these judges, so I will just tell you: it’s two Clinton appointees and one Reagan appointee. Which indicates that a couple of Clinton appointees found possible merit to the appeal.
I love this:
UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky said it was “understandable” that the court “would want to preserve the status quo” pending a final ruling.
But he said he believed Monday’s order could not “be reconciled with well-established law in terms of what is required for a stay.” To block the effect of a ruling, an appealing party must show that it is likely to prevail on appeal and that it will suffer irreparable harm unless the ruling is blocked.
Yeah, it’s a real head-scratcher. Maybe the article could note that the stay could be reconciled with well-established law, if the court thinks that the marriage defenders are likely to prevail, and can show they would suffer irreparable harm.
Of course, all these questions are rather moot now, in light of this line from the article:
The panel said the court would hear the Proposition 8 challenge on an expedited basis and hold arguments the week of Dec. 6. Another panel of three judges is expected to rule on the appeal.
Hmmm. Does anyone know who will be on the final panel?