Gay Marriage Decisions Today; UPDATE: DOMA Struck Down 5-4; UPDATE: Prop. 8 Struck Down (In Essence) on Narrow Standing Ruling
For now, consider this your open thread.
UPDATE: I’ll be updating now from the ScotusBlog.com live chat coverage. First opinion is DOMA.
UPDATE: DOMA struck down 5-4. Kennedy writes the opinion. Not a big shock. Kennedy finds it to be Equal Protection violation.
UPDATE: Opinion confined to “lawful marriages” — possibly a signal that Prop. 8 will be upheld.
UPDATE: Link to the DOMA opinion (.pdf).
UPDATE: A “careful consideration” standard for unusual classifications. Classic Kennedy. My eyes are rolling hard.
UPDATE: Quote from SCOTUSBlog re Scalia reading his dissent: “The Court’s opinion both in explaining its jurisdiction and its decision ‘both spring from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society.'” Classic Scalia.
UPDATE: SCOTUSBlog says there is a suggestion in Roberts’s dissent in DOMA that Prop. 8 will be dealt with on standing grounds.
UPDATE: It’s starting to look like Prop. 8 will go down on a narrow ruling dealing with standing. No wonder Alito was glowering at Kagan the other day.
UPDATE: Proposition 8 struck down (in essence) due to lack of standing on the part of the appellants. Weird majority: Scalia, Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan.
UPDATE: Have not read the ruling but I get the sense Scalia was worried about what Kennedy would do unleashed.
UPDATE: Kagan in majority, not Sotomayor.
Hohophobes
JD (cff141) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:41 amPredictions on when the first lawsuit demanding that polygamous unions be granted legal status will hit the federal court?
aunursa (179e32) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:44 amOr predictions on the first lawsuit demanding legal status for consensual adult incestuous unions?
aunursa (179e32) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:46 amFines, penalties, and taxes are interchangeable, so why not genders?
JD (cff141) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:48 amPrediction: DOMA struck down, Prop. 8 upheld 5-4.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:49 amBarack Obama could learn from the Supreme Court. There tend to be no leaks, at least of impending rulings.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:50 amThis afternoon.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:51 amThe only thing that gives me pause re Prop 8 is Dana Milbank describing Alito glowering at Kagan when it was mentioned the other day.
That does it: I’m flipping my prediction. Prop 8 struck down.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:52 amI just don’t think Kennedy can throw away all that media adulation he has garnered over the years.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:55 amThe Supreme Court striking down DOMA would not only overrule Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006), and call into question the continued validity of state marriage amendments which also ban civil unions, it would call into question over 127 years of precedent.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:55 amA version of what I posted elsewhere yesterday, this a molre appropriate place anyway.
A court in Colo. has ruled that girls at a given elementary school will share a bathroom with a 6 yo biological boy who identifies himself as a girl. If the biological girls have a problem with it, it is their own problem, even when they are 17 and taking a shower together after practice for the girl’s basketball team.
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/transgender-girl-wins-right-to-use-bathroom-at-public-school-183951487.html
Already the law in Massachusetts, now by judicial ruling in Co, and soon to be the law in CA, I guess.
I have plenty of concern and sympathy for a 6 yo who is physically a boy but identifies as a girl (in part because her parents have championed this since age 4 with the “help” of a psychologist),
but making a federal (or state) case out of your 6 year old’s situation just so you can guarantee years of “awkwardness”.
When the kindergarten teacher is ordered by a court who gets to stand in which line for the bathroom, is there anything the government can’t tell you to do?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:57 amOK, I’m flipping back. SCOTUSBlog says Roberts likely writes Prop. 8 opinion so I’ll stick with the 5-4 Prop. 8 struck down prediction.
Final answer.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:00 amComment by Patterico (9c670f) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:00 am
Please remind me: What was your prediction of last year’s ruling on Obamacare?
aunursa (179e32) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:02 amProp 8 is easier to overturn than DOMA, no? Straight intermediate equal protection, giving gender status to homosexuality. DOMA would bring an important Article I interest in conflict with a Fifth Amendment interest with the Tenth jumping up and down for attention. With a relative handful of states still recognizing gay marriage …?
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:03 amDoes the average American even pay attention to Kennedy?
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:03 amI prefer not to. 🙂
I am updating the post as SCOTUSBlog does. DOMA was struck down 5-4.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:06 amWhy wookie-suiters complain about Kennedy? He’s the most libertarian of the bunch.
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:07 amKennedy can probably live with the media backlash to splitting the baby.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:07 amWhat does this mean for the 19 states that also ban civil unions? Indeed, Oklahoma’s amendment which does exactly that (and thus has precisely the same effect as DOMA), is being challenged now in a U.S. district court.
Can the district court distinguish its own case from this? Or must it strike down Oklahoma’s marriage law?
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:10 amnk, Kennedy voted with the majority in Kelo. Not very libertarian.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fd4b99) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:13 amUPDATE: It’s starting to look like Prop. 8 will go down on a narrow ruling dealing with standing. No wonder Alito was glowering at Kagan the other day.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:16 am“Most libertarian of the bunch” is not “libertarian”. They’re all fundamentally statist. I think he’s the most pro-Second Amendment for whatever that’s worth.
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:17 amThis is starting to look like a travesty on par with the shouting down of a law in Texas: a gay judge who arguably has an agenda colludes with plaintiffs, a governor and a state AG refuse to do their jobs, and everyone gets away with it.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:17 amif domas are unconstitutional then I bet avgolemono is too
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:18 amthat was just for Mr. nk
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:18 amConfine it to the 9th Circuit states? No!!!
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:18 amIf DOMA is unconstitutional in the eyes of the wonderful, beautiful liberals (and I’m-okay-you’re-okay squishes), how can Proposition 8 therefore be deemed okay?
Next step: Bisexuality must be accomodated!
Mark (67e579) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:20 amDolmades are best with avgolemono but avgolemono is best in chicken rice soup.
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:20 amI note that in the DOMA case, Scalia would have dismissed the case and ordered the Second Circuit’s opinion to be vacated (which would have resulted in the plaintiff winning.)
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:20 amThis all seems appropriate since another symbol of today’s era, that being the guy in the White House, apparently swings both ways.
Mark (67e579) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:22 amthat soup sounds perfect today
burbank is a challenging place for lunch
me and NG are getting pho tomorrow though I’m very excited
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:24 amI think it is wrong to say dismissing Prop 8 on standing is a narrow decision — it makes the initiative in California (and most other states that have them) useless for directing state government to do things it does not want to do.
All one has to do now to overturn a proposition is to sue on some basis in federal court and have the state decline to defend. If only the state CAN defend (as per such a “narrow” standing decision) then poof, there goes the initiative.
Look for someone to challenge Prop 13 on equal protection grounds shortly.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:26 amI have the recipe somewhere on my blog. Type egg lemon on the search function on the upper left.
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:28 amIt’s narrow in the sense that there is no sweeping nationwide ruling on equal protection and gay rights — in this decision.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:31 ami found your lamb n artichoke hearts – I’m a try and modify that for my slow cooker
maybe this weekend if i get my act together (doubtful)
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:32 amI don’t get it. So if it can’t be appealed, we’re just stuck with that biased gay judge’s decision for all time? Does that make any sense whatsoever?
CK (ae4bf1) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:36 amnk,
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fd4b99) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:37 amDistinction acknowledged. But wouldn’t it be better under your reasoning to say Kennedy is “the least statist of the bunch”?
Patterico, well, d’oh, but it isn’t narrow in its effect, which is probably more sweeping than any action on gay marriage they could have taken.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:37 amAvgolemono is the second part. Substitute chicken soup with rice (to your taste but you’ll need it a little watery to make the avgolemono work) for the lamb and artichokes.
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:37 amCK, they say it can be appealed, but it just wasn’t. TFB, California voters.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:37 amThis still leaves the issue of how far the district court’s ruling goes. District court judgments only bind the parties. Because the clerk of Orange County was not a defendant, the injunction does not require said clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and must follow Proposition 8.
It goes further than that.
The state did authorize proponents to defend the initiative. As such, the state allegedly was defending the law. Looking through the briefs, no federal law passed by Congress had restricted whom the states may choose to defend their laws. What we have here is the Supreme Court making up its own rule and foisting it on the states.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:39 amBut wouldn’t it be better under your reasoning to say Kennedy is “the least statist of the bunch”?
I’m told positive statements sound more credible than negative statements. 😉
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:40 am“Look for someone to challenge Prop 13 on equal protection grounds shortly.”
I was thinking exactly the same thing. Law of unintended consequences in action …
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fd4b99) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:41 amFurther demonstration… conservatives are on the wrong side of history.
soon to be extinct.
Truth (cb9ecd) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:41 amBTW, how did the district court’s ruling happen with no respondent with standing? Or can only the state bring that appeal? Seems like Catch-22.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:42 amComment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:57 am
In my day, girls had curtains and individual showers in the locker room. They still have private stalls in restrooms.
I’m thinking the unknowns in the “little boy identifies as girl” case leave room for a good deal of medical ambiguity with regard to genetics and anatomy. Being labeled a boy at birth will not necessarily be determinative of either.
Singling the child out as a freak was a mistake, I think, especially if the child is intersex, a mosaic, a pseudo or true hermaphrodite, or has an incomplete androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS). (There is a range of phenotypes with the latter, divided into roughly three categories, and this child might be in the categories that include a range of male genitalia but a true difference in brain and overall physical development.) This may not at all be some wacko gender experiment of kook parents with only a psychologists suggestions to guide the school.
Stating the child, who has a very feminine exterior appearance, can go into the boys bathroom shows an utter unconcern for preventing disorder, disruption and confusion among the children who must share the bathroom, when preventing disruption was the pretext of the demand.
Demanding the child use an adult bathroom and be removed from other children as a freak of nature is cruel singling out when it is unlikely to cause the least trouble in the girls bathroom. Little girls have privacy stalls, are naturally modest and don’t have a tendency to evaluate each other’s privates in the loo.
If the situation needs re-evaluation in middle school, that’s one thing, but this is first grade.
Sarahw (b0e533) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:42 amWe are not stuck, because we were not parties. Only the named litigants are stuck.
There are other issues to be resolved, such as if court had authority to enjoin the governor and attorney general (who were not alleged to have denied the marriage licenses to the plaintiffs), or the the defendant county clerks have to issue licenses to anyone else other than the plaintiffs. (It is black letter law that state and local officials not parties to this case are not bound by the injunction.)
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:43 amLaw of unintended consequences in action
Why “unintended” ?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:43 amBut who is going to appeal that, Michael?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:44 amI should point out that I support gay marriage. I just don’t support destroying anything that stands in its way.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:45 amCourts have a duty to must “consider… the authority of the lower courts to proceed” Arizonans v. Official English, 520 U.S. 43 at 73 (1997) Indeed, the Supreme Court in Arizonans had declared the case moot even though it did not resolve whether petitioners had standing.
In any event, if anyone tries to force the clerk of Orange County to abide by the injunction, the clerk would have standing.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:48 amThe people who are on the wrong side of society consistently proclaim they have some secret knowledge of history.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:49 amTruth = Lie
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:50 amThe Prop 8 decision is a pro-statist decision.
When you go to the root of it, it all came down to whether or not the Executive branch of California would fulfill their duty to defend the right of the same citizens that elected them to use the initiative process. The people had spoken; the Attorney Generals’ (Bill Lockyer & Jerry Brown) response was “Ehhhh, eff you.”
So, there you go, America: If you vote a certain way to amend your state’s Constitution, you are SCREWED if the people in the big chairs disagree.
L.N. Smithee (55f81e) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:51 amUPDATE: Sorry, meant to say Prop. 8 ruling upheld, not Prop. 8 upheld. Prop. 8 obviously struck down.
D’oh! I originally construed that to mean there was a bit of sanity left in the court, particularly since one of the liberal justices implied that if a matter like Proposition 8 couldn’t disallow marriages between people of the same sex, then no law could exist to restrict any type of relationship.
Mark (67e579) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:51 amNope. Res judicata and law of the case are strong and not alone. There is also stare decisis in the jurisdiction of the district court. There is gay marriage in California, Prop 8 is a nullity.
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:51 amhttp://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos
Sotomayor dissented on the Prop 8 ruling.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:53 am“Wrong side of history” is just a way of saying “We’re going to be the people writing the history books and we’re going to vilify you.”
L.N. Smithee (55f81e) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:54 amRes judicata only applies to the named litigants.
Actually, there is not.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:54 amFull opinion. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:55 amcalifornia was never gonna be a bulwark against marriage equality no matter what our silly perverted roberts court decided
so that’s some consolation there for the haters
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:56 amThanks for your intellectual honesty.
L.N. Smithee (55f81e) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:57 amhappyfeet: Who’s a “hater”?
L.N. Smithee (55f81e) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:58 am“Wrong side of history” is just a way of saying “We’re going to be the people writing the history books and we’re going to vilify you.”
This. Except with the MFM as their megaphone, they don’t even wait for the history books.
JD (cff141) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:58 amSotomayor dissented on the Prop 8 ruling.
I believe she was the liberal jurist who I recall expressing some uneasiness while the case was being argued in the court about the idea that state laws have no right to determine who can or cannot be married.
Mark (67e579) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:59 amI have a laissez-faire attitude. I, in no way, equate it with the struggle for racial equality and I resent those who do.
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:59 amThe SCOTUS has just decided that government no longer requires the consent of the governed.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:59 amBingo.
L.N. Smithee (55f81e) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:00 amso that’s some consolation there for the haters
Remember your statement, happyfeet, when you use “gay” in a pejorative way, which you have a habit of doing.
BTW, this reminds me of a liberal I was talking to a few months ago and my mentioning to him that Obama probably was bisexual. The look on that person’s face sort of dropped — a glint of defensiveness came over him — and he didn’t exactly take my comment in a positive or even neutral way.
Mark (67e579) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:02 amLN – Happyfeet doesn’t care about the process, or how you get there, only that they arrive at his favored positions.
JD (cff141) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:02 amIf the consent of the people is no longer necessary, why do need to continue to elect members of Congress to represent them?
ropelight (256a22) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:04 amIt did more than that; it made up restrictions on state power.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:06 amthat is not true JD i only wanted the court to gut doma
the california decision is meaningless
california was never ever ever going to stand with Team Bigotry for very long
which I think most people kinda knew on an intuitive level
(california has a very pronounced tendency to embrace socially liberal policies)
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:07 amMeanwhile, the problem of male-on-male rape in the US military is reportedly increasing at this time in American history.
Wonderful.
Mark (67e579) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:07 amIn a world that has a two-bit Chicago pol become President and then get re-elected in a self made horrendous economy, this is just another nail in the coffin of the country. I grieve for the our country as it slips into the abyss.
jason (64cfc7) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:08 amJustice Kennedy’s dissent:
Justice Kennedy is spot on here (and on DOMA, btw)
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:09 amcalifornia was never ever ever going to stand with Team Bigotry for very long
But the process matters.
JD (cff141) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:09 ami agree the process matters
california should still have a gay marriage ballot initiative to button this down I think
it’s just the right way to go about things
happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:11 amBread and circuses, dude.
Not that I’ve been immune to the various distractions. I spent 20 years in the nav only to find I was guarding a crack house run by the prison guards.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:12 amSo, what California needs, then, is a law or initiative stating that proponents of initiatives are automatically deputized to act as agents of the state’s interests wrt the initiative whenever the state chooses not to act. Probably with a few million to defray expenses.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:14 amFTFY
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:15 amThere is a lot of consolation for the “haters”. Both were very conservative rulings. Windsor seems to me to be Tenth Amendment, not Fifth Amendment. The federal government’s unfairness was in depriving citizens of some states of privileges granted them by their state which those states have the right to grant under their plenary power over marriage. Perry did not touch homosexuality as a gender equality issue at all. Whatever Walker wrote he wrote, it can’t be appealed because nobody with standing wants to appeal it, and that’s it. My brother can think I was a total wimp in my divorce settlement but ….
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:16 amJustice Kennedy points out in his dissent that many previous Supreme Court rulings are now suspect, in a wide variety of subjects.
Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12-14, Dis. Op. at 11-12
Indeed, just last year Arizona passed a law that allowed initiaitve proponents to defend their initiatives in Court. Prior to this ruling, those proponents could rely on Young, supra, to assert Article III standing. Now they can not do so anymore.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:16 amThis “narrow” standing decision is vastly statist.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:17 amSurely a law their overlords will never enact. Just as surely an initiative their overlords will never defend in court. You dream.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:19 amWhatever Walker wrote he wrote, it can’t be appealed because nobody with standing wants to appeal it, and that’s it.
the only consolation is that state and local officers and agencies not parties to this ruling are not bound by it. E.g., Clerk of the County of Orange, the state treasurer, the Franchise Tax Board.
the bigger problem is the DOMA ruling and Arrticle 3, Section 3.5 of the California Constitution.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
This is what the Supreme Court did with DOMA. Would non-party state officials interpret the DOMA decision to give them a green light to refuse to enforce Prop. 8?
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:20 amI wonder if the proponents of the initiative can sue now-Governor Brown, personally, for his refusal to defend — which was obviously not “in performance of his duties” — as they were clearly harmed monetarily by his inaction. They could seek to recover all their costs in promoting the initiative and all their court costs, with punitive damages.
That would be another method to correct this problem.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:22 amThere’s always a reason to take consolation in losing a war.
http://www.warbirdforum.com/sakai.htm
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:25 amMichael — the DOMA decision only states that the federal government cannot substitute it’s judgement for that of a given state’s wrt who is or is not “married.” At least in regards to those types of things that have always been state, and not federal, law.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:26 am*its
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:27 amBTW, this is the second truly terrible decision by Roberts, again doing great damage while pretending to be a minimalist. I cannot decide if he is really that stupid or just an evil man.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:45 am“Indeed, just last year Arizona passed a law that allowed initiaitve proponents to defend their initiatives in Court. Prior to this ruling, those proponents could rely on Young, supra, to assert Article III standing. Now they can not do so anymore.”
– Michael Ejercito
Do you think that this opinion might pave the way to a healthy discussion about public interest standing?
Leviticus (b98400) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:48 amIlya Somin at Volokh:
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:50 am“The Court’s opinion is correct to state, and the Supreme Court of California was careful to acknowledge, that a proponent’s standing to defend an initiative in federal court is a question of federal law. Proper resolution of the justiciability question requires, in this case, a threshold determination of state law [of standing].”
– Justice Kennedy
A question to those with more experience and knowledge of these things:
What prompts a federal court applying federal law in these circumstances to look to CA state law of standing (i.e. the CASC’s determination that limited third-party standing is a necessary pillar of the initiative process)?
Is it essentially an application of the Erie Doctrine, or is it something more specific than that?
Leviticus (b98400) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:54 amDoMA was struck down because Justice Kennedy and the four simpletons held that the federal government has no proper role in determining who may or may not get married, that such was always a state issue. (One wonders if we will ever again see the four simpletons deferring to state power.)
But the primary impetus for DoMA was the then-impending probability that a Massachusetts court would require the commonwealth to allow same-sex marriage, and other states wanted to avoid having to recognize such idiocy via the full faith and credit clause. I glanced at the opinion quickly, but did not see that addressed; does that mean that the states which have restrictions on marriage to opposite sex couples will be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the silly states? It would seem to me that that would be an unavoidably federal issue.
The inquisitive Dana (3e4784) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:55 am“The Court’s decision also has implications for the 26 other States that use an initiative or popular referendum system and which, like California, may choose to have initiative proponents stand in for the State when public officials decline to defend an initiative in litigation.”
– Justice Kennedy
I think that might be the lasting legacy of this case, honestly – not that I’m doing anything but stating the obvious, there. Which is why Kevin M. pinpoints this opinion as statist, if I’m not mistaken? And if that’s the case, I would be inclined to agree.
Leviticus (b98400) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:57 amWhat prompts a federal court applying federal law in these circumstances to look to CA state law of standing (i.e. the CASC’s determination that limited third-party standing is a necessary pillar of the initiative process)?
Part of it might be the fact that the 9th Circuit specifically asked the CA court to address this issue for it.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:16 amWhich is why Kevin M. pinpoints this opinion as statist, if I’m not mistaken?
yup
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:16 amDana–
Unaddressed in much of this was the fact that Prop 8 went on the ballot BEFORE the CA state courts had created the ssm right, which they hurriedly did 4-3 a few months before the vote. And when asked then to quash the vote, the court voted 6-1 not to, believing that it was the voter’s right to correct them if need be.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:20 amCalifornians twice voted otherwise. If this can ever be fixed, I say it should be made retroactive to the original State Supreme Court decision, and screw the ex-post-facto clause. A rule that only one side is expected to follow is automatically a nullity.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:25 amdoes that mean that the states which have restrictions on marriage to opposite sex couples will be required to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the silly states? It would seem to me that that would be an unavoidably federal issue.
Dana,
Not directly, only section 3 was struck down. But that is a domino that Scalia was worried about in his dissent.
How do states deal with other state’s different marriage laws? I don’t think there is a requirement to recognize another state’s common-law marriage, although all states seem to even if they don’t have that option themselves.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:27 amWhere in the constitution does it say that state marriage laws automatically should override federal marriage laws?
CK (ae4bf1) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:29 amThe impression I gat from the various opinions from the Supreme Court over the past year is that this isn’t just a partisan court, it’s a fractured court. I hope for everyone’s sake that won’t be the legacy of the Roberts Court.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:31 amThe challenge was only to the no-federal-recognition section of DOMA (which I said at the time was wrong).
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:34 amCK, where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can even have marriage laws?
Let me cut the obvious idiocy off at the pass. I don’t see where the federal government is barred from having an opinion about which state marriage laws it will recognize.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:36 amThe federal government isn’t authorised to have marriage laws.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:36 amMr M wrote:
The most obvious point of difference would be not common law marriages but consanguineous ones: some states permit first cousin marriage, while others only allow second cousins or more further removed to be legally married (in Kentucky, we used to say that only West Virginia allowed brothers and sisters to get married 😆 ), but I have never heard of a first cousin marriage, legally performed in a state where such is allowable, being not recognized in another state. I’m sure it primarily because nobody asks.
That problem was part of the Virginia law overturned in Loving v Virginia. The Commonwealth would not allow interracial marriages, and also criminalized the going out of state by interracial couples to get married, and trying to force such marriages to be recognized by Virginia.
The Dana who isn't an attorney (3e4784) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:39 amA state doesn’t have to recognise any marriage that couldn’t have been legally performed in that state. But they all choose to do so. (E.g. some states consider first-cousin marriages incestuous, but they still recognise such marriages that were performed in a state that does allow them.) Nothing prevents them from making an exception to this policy in the case of same-sex “marriage”.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:41 am“The federal government isn’t authorized to have marriage laws.”
They get to define marital-based benefits. Where does it say the state gets to override them on who they decide to give federal benefits to?
CK (ae4bf1) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:43 amIncidentally I think Loving went too far. The court should have told Virginia “you don’t have to recognise the marriage, but you can’t make it a crime for them to travel to another state, or for them to do in that state something that is legal over there”.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:43 am“Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can even have marriage laws?… I don’t see where the federal government is barred from having an opinion about which state marriage laws it will recognize.”
– Steve57
Isn’t that allowing the federal government to implement de facto marriage laws? If there’s one thing I learned from administrative law, it’s that an “opinion” belonging to the federal government is anything but.
Leviticus (1aca67) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:44 amMarriage laws are inherently a state matter; they always have been, so they’re reserved to the states by the ninth amendment. Congress can decide not to give federal benefits to same-sex couples, but it can’t do so by declaring the couple isn’t married when their state of citizenship says they are. Instead it would have to uncouple (pun intended) the benefit from marriage altogether, and find a different formula that would somehow include mixed-sex couples and not same-sex ones. I’m not sure how it could do that.
Milhouse (3d0df0) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:47 amThe closets should be empty after this.
mg (31009b) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:49 amI just want to point out George Bush I is 100% to blame for all this.
Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:56 amKennedy is Reagan’s. Scalia too.
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 10:06 amGreat another utterly incoherent Kennedy opinion making a further hash of Equal Protection doctrine. Glad I don’t have to teach constitutional law to anyone any longer. Sometimes I wish Scalia would have gone the other way on DOMA just so we could have a more competently written opinion.
SPQR (60ba58) — 6/26/2013 @ 10:09 amI’m just buying a sailboat. I’ve recruited three strippers to crew it. We’ll sail tourist port to port in the Caribbean taking whatever odd jobs we can find in the resorts.
How bad does Obama sux? Black strippers in Tejas can’t stop talking about how bad Obama sux. Making recruiting that much easier. (Some can’t leave their kids, which I totally understand. If I could swing a boat that could accommodate kids I’d have more than three.)
Disclaimer: I only go to strip clubs for the coffee. After 20 years in the Navy I learned to love coffee that had been left brewing in the pot over the weekend. Roofing tar.
But me and the girls, we talk.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/26/2013 @ 10:31 amSteve57, damn, that’s a plan.
SPQR (60ba58) — 6/26/2013 @ 10:33 amhohophobe
OK, I give up. What’s a “hohophobe”?
Libertarian Advocate (206681) — 6/26/2013 @ 10:38 amWhile I’m happy with Proposition 8 failing, I really dislike the Chief Justice’s opinion on standing. This eviscerates the initiative system. :{
aphrael (0d3ebe) — 6/26/2013 @ 10:40 amKennedy was Reagan’s nominee after Teddy the Drunk borked Robert Bork.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/26/2013 @ 10:43 amReagan believed that Kennedy was a conservative who could get confirmed.
I would like to see a poll on how many gay people want to get married.
Not how many are against Prop 8, but how many want to get married.
Patricia (be0117) — 6/26/2013 @ 10:51 amSPQR, there are a lot of strippers in this world, and lots of ports. Feel free to act on the information.
As an aside, you’d be amazed at the number of strippers who’d jump at the chance to get the hell out of dodge before their baby daddy gets out of prison.
Or maybe you wouldn’t be.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/26/2013 @ 10:51 amSPQR #116,
Kennedy might have changed sides so he could write the opinion.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/26/2013 @ 10:56 am58.“Wrong side of history” is just a way of saying “We’re going to be the people writing the history books and we’re going to vilify you.”
Comment by L.N. Smithee (55f81e) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:54 am
2nd by JD, I say Aye.
I only skimmed the comments, but I didn’t see what I heard as part of Scalia’s comments in the dissent on DOMA-
that in essence the majority was ruling by having the opinon that people that wanted a traditional view of marriage did so primarily out of intention to harm gays because they are haters
and thjere was no significant law reasoning behind it
It was another example that we are no longer a nation of laws but of people who rule by their opinion, as long as the media and public sentiment let them get away with it.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/26/2013 @ 11:06 amback to SarahW above, I am assuming that there is no biological basis (in terms of hormone syndromes, etc.) for the child to appear to be a girl or to act like a girl.
Any boy allowed and encouraged to dress and act like a girl from 4- 6 is going to …guess what…not look like a boy
And the law in Massachusetts includes all ages in public school, including 17 yo’s.
never been in a girls locker room in high school. boys rooms were not very orivate.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/26/2013 @ 11:07 amEverything was eviscerated, citizens of a state are not allowed to create new amendments to a constitution
Supreme Court justices do not have to make legal arguments to impose a ruling
And people who simply want to uphold 3,500 years of tradition, as well as practice their religious beliefs,
are officially designated to be haters by the Supreme Court
feets I guess is happy
not much more to say, i reckon
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/26/2013 @ 11:11 amoops, my post which is listed as #127 on my computer apparently hasn’t registered
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/26/2013 @ 11:14 amgood bye
Breyer.
Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec) — 6/26/2013 @ 11:16 amThis is just all under the umbrella of last summer’s ruling that the federal government can make you buy something, and in this case, they’re making you buy some very tortured logic. Or whatever.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/26/2013 @ 11:16 amSorry ? Breyer was appointed by Clinton right? Is he Harvard guy?
Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec) — 6/26/2013 @ 11:17 amTypo Central …. I blame George Bush II. Forgive me.
Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec) — 6/26/2013 @ 11:20 amSteve57, it takes a lot to surprise me these days.
DRJ, you just said that to troll me.
SPQR (768505) — 6/26/2013 @ 11:22 amWould some of you legal eagles care to set me straight on something?
It seems to me that it would be within the province of the Congress to write a “Standing Rule” that would address the issue found in Prop-8:
That the proponents of an Initiative would have standing superior to the Governor; and that the Supremes might not like it, but would have to observe it.
Anyone?
askeptic (b8ab92) — 6/26/2013 @ 11:41 amIf only the citizens of California had the wisdom to define marriage as a tax . . .
Sewer Urchin (3cbdb1) — 6/26/2013 @ 11:44 amPredictible, but disheartening. Only a matter of time till you can marry your sibling and the age of consent is lowered to “acceptable levels” for certain perverts. That’s progress for you.
It’s sad how far this nation has fallen in one generation.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 6/26/2013 @ 12:08 pmI’ve said this elsewhere, but the parents should be in jail. That’s as clear cut a case for child abuse as any physical marks are.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 6/26/2013 @ 12:10 pmDRJ, Kennedy was consistent on standing in that he wanted standing in both cases. So I don’t think he switched sides.
aphrael (659a8d) — 6/26/2013 @ 12:12 pmAskeptic @133: probably not. The official theory behind the standing rule is that the minimum standing requirements are implied by the constitution. I don’t see how Congress could statutorily overturn that.
aphrael (659a8d) — 6/26/2013 @ 12:13 pmYes, aphrael, and it may be unfair to suggest he might switch sides solely to control the opinion. But he’s been known to switch sides before.
DRJ (8b9d41) — 6/26/2013 @ 12:15 pmNJRob wrote:
I think it’s already legal in West Virginia. 😆
The Dana who grew up in Kentucky (3e4784) — 6/26/2013 @ 12:31 pm==I have a laissez-faire attitude. I, in no way, equate it with the struggle for racial equality and I resent those who do.
Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:59 am==
nk–you are not alone. The recent failure by proponents to pass gay marriage in IL boiled down to one thing. That is that many Black legislators, Black leaders and Black church communities reacted very negatively to a narrative attempt (mostly by whites) which tried to equate marriage “equality” with the bloody struggle of Black Americans for safety, dignity, and civil rights over 300 years in this country. After the decision was made at the very last minute not to call a vote, the angry proponents erupted and tried to blame conservatives and Black bible thumpers for, well, bible thumping. But that was not their problem in IL. Their problem was that the gay lobby neither knew nor tried to understand their opponents. It was much more their casual thumbing their noses at the real Black historical experience than it was the bible that caused their failure to get Blacks to support marriage equality. But the overzealous overwhelmingly young white advocates who cruised in from other states did not “get” that.
There will be another bill next session and probably new talking points. But for those of us who follow politics in this state the “play” on this effort was highly entertaining and instructive.
elissa (1aa61b) — 6/26/2013 @ 12:34 pmMy cousin lives in West Virginia. But she’s a lib and they keep voting in liars like Manchin, so I don’t bother to defend them.
NJRob (fe68e7) — 6/26/2013 @ 12:43 pmfind a different formula that would somehow include mixed-sex couples and not same-sex ones. I’m not sure how it could do that.
Kinda like the post-Reconstruction South coupled gun ownership to the militia, then barred blacks from the militia.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 12:54 pmDo you think that back in the 1990s, Bill Clinton didn’t know this [overturning of DOMA] was quite likely to happen?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/26/2013 @ 12:58 pmNo, Sammy, in the mid ’90’s there was no reason to think that DOMA would be overturned as unconstitutional.
SPQR (768505) — 6/26/2013 @ 12:59 pmSyllabus: It frustrates New York’s objective of eliminating inequality by writing inequality into the entire United States Code.
No, what it does is prevent a few states, or even many states, from rewriting the U.S. code to cover something that was never intended.
What if some states decided to recognize bigamous or polygamous marriages?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:00 pmDRJ, oh, i’m not saying it’s unfair to suggest. Just that in this case it doesn’t seem to me that he switched sides.
aphrael (659a8d) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:02 pm“It contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimeswithin the same State.”
Does the court not understand that it is quite possible to make all kinds of other arrangements into a “marriage”?
The whole problem is the court has changed what is the default.
If the “full faith and credit” clause cannot compel other states to recognize certain marriages, and I don’t think the court is saying that, why should the federal government be so compelled?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:03 pmThe justices might have argued quite a lot about jurisdiction. There’s a lot of space devoted to that issue.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:05 pmThe opinion is trying to limit this forced recognition mostly to this issue, and obviously Justice Kennedy is making a value judgment. He supports it.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:07 pmJustice Roberts wants to point out that the court’s opinion does not force any individual state to recognize same sex marriage.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:10 pmScalia: This seems to be neother a federalism opinion not an equal-protection opinion.
Of course, it’s basically a political decision.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:14 pmScalia: ….DOMA avoids difficult choice-of-law issues that will now arise absent a uniform federal definition of marriage. See, e.g., Baude, Beyond DOMA: Choice of State Law in Fed- eral Statutes, 64 Stan. L. Rev. 1371 (2012). Imagine a pair of women who marry in Albany and then move to Alabama, which does not “recognize as valid any marriage of parties of the same sex.” Ala. Code §30–1–19(e) (2011).
When the couple files their next federal tax return, may it be a joint one? Which State’s law controls, for federal-law purposes: their State of celebration (which recognizes the marriage) or their State of domicile (which does not)? (Does the answer depend on whether they were just visiting in Albany?) Are these questions to be answered as a matter of federal common law, or perhaps by borrowing a State’s choice-of-law rules? If so, which State’s? And what about States where the status of an out-of-state same-sex marriage is an unsettled question under local law? See Godfrey v. Spano, 13 N. Y. 3d 358, 920 N. E. 2d 328 (2009).
DOMA avoided all of this uncertainty by specifying which marriages would be recognized for federal purposes. That is a classic purpose for a definitional provision.
Further, DOMA preserves the intended effects of prior legislation against then-unforeseen changes in circumstance. When Congress provided (for example) that a special estate-tax exemption would exist for spouses, this exemption reached only opposite-sex spouses—those being the only sort that were recognized in any State at the time of DOMA’s passage. When it became clear that changes instate law might one day alter that balance, DOMA’s definitional section was enacted to ensure that state-level experimentation did not automatically alter the basic operation of federal law, unless and until Congress made the further judgment to do so on its own. That is not animus—just stabilizing prudence. Congress has hardly demonstrated itself unwilling to make such further, revising judgments upon due deliberation. See, e.g., Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010, 124 Stat. 3515.
The Court mentions none of this. Instead, it accuses the Congress that enacted this law and the President whosigned it of something much worse than, for example,having acted in excess of enumerated federal powers—or even having drawn distinctions that prove to be irrational. Those legal errors may be made in good faith, errors though they are. But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose” (ante, at 25) “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” ibid.; to “impose inequality,” ante, at 22; to “impose . . . a stigma,” ante, at 21; to deny people “equal dignity,” ibid.; to brand gay people as “unworthy,” ante, at 23; and to “humiliat[e]” their children, ibid. (emphasis added).
I am sure these accusations are quite untrue. To be sure (as the majority points out), the legislation is calledthe Defense of Marriage Act. But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statuteis to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “dis- parage,” ”injure,” “degrade,” ”demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homosexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that didno more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence—indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.
————————————
Even Scalia seems to endorse, in principle, same-sex marriage.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:21 pm114. Justice Souter has retired, althouygh he was replaced by an Obama appointee..
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:24 pmI foresee the muslim-mormon axis coming in for the bigamist marriages, along with the wiccan group marriages.
I’m sure the bestialist marriages will come shortly thereafter.
luagha (5cbe06) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:34 pmComment by Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:39 am
The state did authorize proponents to defend the initiative. As such, the state allegedly was defending the law. …What we have here is the Supreme Court making up its own rule and foisting it on the states
And I understand the court, or the lower court did allow the proposition to be defended at the lower federal court level. So what that does is prevent a state Attorney General from colluding with an ouitside plaintiff to nullify any initiative but where there’s a real legal controversy (or a friendly judge, and maybe that could happen with any political controversy) they lose.
This is totally making up their own rules, and trying to make a rule that isn’t so bad.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:34 pmBy the way, it’s not just initiatives, but laws passed by a state legislature that a State Attorney General could get a lot of veto power over. (or does the legislature have aright to defend the law? What if the political compsoition of the legislature and, maybe the Goverbor, chjanges form what it was when the law was first passed?
The Attorney general gets this power at least if he wasn’t acting alone and the case against the law was not frivolous.
But if there’s no appeal possible, how careful do you have to be to have some challenge not be frivolous? Of course this won’t be an issue except where you have strong lobbies.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:36 pmWith regard too Proposition 13, the group that created the initiative is anyway long defunct.
And if it were to have the right for 35 years even and longer after the initiative was passed, the values of the people who control organization or committee or board could change anyway.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:39 pm145. Comment by SPQR (768505) — 6/26/2013 @ 12:59 pm
No, Sammy, in the mid ’90′s there was no reason to think that DOMA would be overturned as unconstitutional.
I thought so.
That is, I didn’t think that law would prevent anything, if a judge created recognition of same sexs marriage, and that wa sthe way it was likely to happen..
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:41 pmIncidentally I think Loving went too far. The court should have told Virginia “you don’t have to recognise the marriage, but you can’t make it a crime for them to travel to another state, or for them to do in that state something that is legal over there”.
I think Loving was fine, but note that it happened after mixed-race marriages were accepted by most states, and by the federal government, often by statute. If they had done that in 1948 it would have been more controversial. See Roe.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 1:55 pmWith regard too Proposition 13, the group that created the initiative is anyway long defunct.
No,it is not, or it wasn’t recently. I think Joel Fox runs it. Corporations have rights that extend past a given board.
But that’s not really at issue, since any affected property taxpayer would have standing to respond. But I’m not sure who would be able defend something like term limits, where the public’s expectations or aspirations are all that are harmed.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 2:07 pmThe Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association still lives. But apparently Jon Coupal runs it now.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 2:13 pmI think the Clintons thought very well that one day DOMA would be struck down, which is why they argued for DOMA and said any move for a Constitutional Amendment was unnecessary.
I’m not surprised of their talking out of both sides of their mouths, but when they rail against DOMA as being a law in the first place when it was signed by B.C and supported by dems as well as repubs, then I guess they are distorting their mouths into more than 2 sides.
I think I still have a post caught in the filter.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/26/2013 @ 2:17 pmSammy, it’s quite clear actually that the officials of the state legislature could defend a law passed by the legislature. The precedent which says that is discussed at length in today’s opinion.
aphrael (659a8d) — 6/26/2013 @ 2:20 pm“…The official theory behind the standing rule is that the minimum standing requirements are implied by the constitution. I don’t see how Congress could statutorily overturn that.”
Comment by aphrael (659a8d) — 6/26/2013 @ 12:13 pm
Oh, it’s hidden in a penumbra of an emanation then?
askeptic (b8ab92) — 6/26/2013 @ 3:48 pmCongress can very well write rules that the Court has to observe, just as they can limit what cases it can hear that are outside of what is specified in Art-III, Sec-2.
If that is not the case, then the Preamble of the Constitution is a fraud, and the concept of the People as Sovereign has been overturned, and this country is ripe for revolution.
askeptic – he hearts SMEGMA
JD (b63a52) — 6/26/2013 @ 3:50 pmNo, it’s gotta be a f***ing case or controversy. According to the Constitution. If you’re not fighting, get the f*** out of our courthouse. You too, it’s not your fight, go get some ice cream.
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 3:56 pmJD, you may have misplaced a comment.
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 3:57 pmso adam and steve
Colonel Haiku (5b5d3b) — 6/26/2013 @ 4:41 pmrear portal is an exit
and not an entrance
This begs the question.
What happens after the plaintiffs receive their marriage licenses?
A Ninth Circuit ruling, Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 658 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2011), is dispositive.
Log Cabin revolves around the appeal of a district court injunction that enjoined the United States from enforcing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law (DADT). While the case was under appeal, DADT was repealed by Congress. The injury that allegedly gave plaintiffs standing was the threat of military discharge due to sexual orientation, and the repeal of DADT removed the threat. The Ninth Circuit had to determine if the case was moot. See Log Cabin, Part II, A (1).It declared the case moot. id., Part III. Among other things, it vacated the injunction. Thus, Log Cabin stands for the proposition that an injunction is no longer in force when the injury granting plaintiffs standing is fully relieved.
This principle applies with greater force when, as here, the injury was a failure to perform a specific act, instead of a threat to perform future acts (as was the case in Log Cabin.). In the latter case, the injunction must remain as long as the threat exists. Here, once the plaintiffs get their licenses, there would be no further need for an injunction. The judgment would be fully satisfied and no further enforcement will be necessary, and no further action from this case can arise, for plaintiffs will no longer have a concrete injury to a particularized legal interest that they hold.
And of course, hundreds of local officials in California were not parties in the case and so are not bound by the injunction.
Michael Ejercito (e545b1) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:03 pmThe basis of the Prop 8 decision is simple.
Scalia and Roberts guessed (or knew) that in a ruling on the merits, Kennedy and the liberal bloc would invent a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
To avoid this immediate calamity, they produced a ruling on standing which satisfied Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsberg.
It screws Californians and residents of any other state with the initiative, but that’s long term damage.
After seeing Kennedy’s opinion on DOMA, this was probably the best possible outcome. Someone at Volokh wrote that it was hard to understand Kennedy’s reasoning. It’s actually simple. “Gay is OK! Anyone or anything that is not pro-Gay! is Bad. And the Constitution prohibits anything the Right People (like me) think is Bad.”
Rich Rostrom (47c4e2) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:18 pmThe State of California was a party, duly served through its lawful representative the governor, and duly defended through its lawful attorney the attorney general. There is no California law now which would entitle any government official, acting under the laws of the State of California, to lawfully refuse to perform the ministerial act of granting a marriage license to a couple solely on the basis that they are of the same sex.
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:22 pmAskeptic, it’s already been well established that Congress may not authorize the Supreme Court to take case which the Supreme Court believes the Constitution prohibits it to take. That’s been binding law for 210 years now.
aphrael (659a8d) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:24 pmUnless you don’t agree that the State of California is a sovereign entity but a confederation of autonomous counties and municipalities.
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:25 pmMichael, I believe the counterpoint to that is that since Governor Schwarzenegger was a named party to the suit, Governor Brown is bound by it, and he is required to order those under his control to comply with the injunction against enforcement of Proposition 8.
Attorney General Harris has addressed this already in the following memorandum:
http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/ht/ag_prop_8_letter.pdf
aphrael (659a8d) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:26 pmIt’s over and done
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:31 pmBut the would of could of lives on inside.
And who’s the one cosigning
The license form at Riverside?
Wrong.
See the Eleventh Amendment and Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 at 183-184 (1908) (“”this immunity of a State from suit is absolute and unqualified, and the constitutional provision securing it is not to be so construed as to place the State within the reach of the process of the court.) Thus, the State itself was not a party.
How could you be so wrong?
Yes, there is.
Proposition 8.
The district court judgment, in case you have not noticed, only binds the named parties. It does not bind non-parties like the Orange County Clerk or the Franchise Tax Board. The case and controversy was between specific individuals, and once those plaintiffs receive marriage licenses, the controversy would be extinguished.
Have you ever even taken time to do research on how U.S. district courts work?
Michael Ejercito (e545b1) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:35 pmAnd what happens once the named plaintiffs receive the licenses.
Would they not have rtecieved full satisfaction of the judgment?
Michael Ejercito (e545b1) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:36 pmHer error is that she claims that the county clerks are agents of the DPH. They are not, for they are not fiduciaries of the DPH. The Supreme Court held that agents must have fiduciary duties to their principals, and county clerks have no such duties to the DPH.
Michael Ejercito (e545b1) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:40 pmIt seems that the most disturbing aspect of the DOMA thing wasn’t so much the ruling as the grounds it was decided upon. They didn’t just say it was unconstitutional because of states rights, they said that the law was merely motivated by bigotry and thus it was invalid. So now there’s a precedent for striking down other laws on the grounds that it is merely “bigoted”.
CK (ae4bf1) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:54 pmWell in that sense, it’s a carbon copy of the Walker decision.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:55 pmJustice Scalia:
” The penultimate sentence of the majority’s opinion is a naked declaration that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined” to those couples “joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State.” Ante, at 26, 25. I have heard such “bald, unreasoned disclaimer[s]” before. Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 604. When the Court declared a constitutional right to homosexual sodomy, we were assured that the case had nothing, nothing at all to do with “whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Id., at 578. Now we are told that DOMA is invalid because it “demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects,” ante, at 23—with an accompanying citation of Lawrence. It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.”
SPQR (768505) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:07 pmLet’s say the Sonoma County library board now decides to challenge old Prop. 13 claiming it has been materially harmed — having their funding reduced due to the capped property taxes. The STATE (officials) choose NOT to defend Prop. 13. With today’s SCOTUS ruling, now the proponents (property tax limiters) have NO standing. Thus – Prop. 13 will be “back door” invalidated. Far fetched or not?
Randy Withers (c4b14a) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:18 pmRandy, a particular property owner whose tax is raised would have standing.
SPQR (768505) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:21 pmSo now there’s a precedent for striking down other laws on the grounds that it is merely “bigoted”.
At least the symbolic underpinnings of polygamous relationships are going to start entering the fray, since frowning upon that is no less a form of bigotry. Even more so since multi-partner situations reflect human nature (ie, male nature in particular) far more than does same-sex situations, both in terms of history and numbers. Or also, more interestingly, because of the irony of Sharia Law wending its way into non-Islamic areas of the world like Europe and, even in that instance, the left being just about as politically or certainly emotionally accommodating of such “alternative lifestyles.”
In terms of human nature and homosexuality — and of what goes around, comes around — the famous ancient Greek philosopher Plato originally scoffed at anti-gay (using today’s lingo) sentiment, claiming that only cretins were bothered by it. But he apparently changed his tune later in life and started to condemn homosexuality.
Mark (67e579) — 6/26/2013 @ 6:27 pmComment by aphrael (659a8d) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:24 pm
But, Congress can pass legislation that would force the issue upon the Judiciary.
askeptic (2bb434) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:20 pmIt wouldn’t be the first time that two branches have been at loggerheads.
Occasionally, you need a good fight to clear the air.
To say that a group that wrote an Initiative, and petitioned to put it on the ballot, does not have standing to contest a court decision about that initiative, is ludicrous, and a mockery of the concept at the very heart of our government:
That the People are Sovereign, and that Government exists by the consent of the governed.
My last word on the subject:
“Standing” is a SCOTUS-created rule to minimize the Judiciary’s workload, and has no relationship to the actual world.
askeptic (2bb434) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:27 pmIt is ripe for a “political solution” (i.e., Congress).
I haven’t read all the comments. I was driving today. Sorry if I’m repeating someone’s point. The best comment I heard was from John Eastman, retired dean of Chapman law school. The Prop 8 hearing was a “collusive suit” because Brown and the AG refused to defend it. Definition:
” A lawsuit where the parties are not actually in disagreement, but are cooperating to steer the court towards some agreed-upon conclusion. Such suits are not allowed in federal court, because they are not adversarial. US v Johnson, 319 US 302 (1943).”
It seems to me that a rehearing, which is what the decision calls for, as I understand it, should focus on this item.
Mike K (dc6ffe) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:43 pm…and I would add J.Alito’s last word:
“... Only an arrogant legal culture that has lost all appreciation of its own limitations could take such a suggestion seriously.”
askeptic (2bb434) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:44 pmTo be more specific, county clerks, as independently elected officials, are not employed by the DPH. They are neither servants nor agents, and they have no fiduciary duty to it. Attorney General Harris fails to mention in her letter exactly how the DPH controls the clerks. Nor does she cite anything showing that the DPH is liable for the actions of the county clerks. Most tellingly, she does not claim that the DPH can unilaterally overturn an action of the county clerk with respect to marriage licenses or any subject matter, which would have obviated any need for a lawsuit in Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco. Indeed, no legal provision in the California Family Code dealing with marriage gives the DPH authority to overrule the county clerk. And even more tellingly, plaintiffs did not allege that they went to the DPH in an attempt to overturn the denial of their marriage license applications.
One would think that if the county clerks were under the control of the DPH, the DPH could overrule their decisions to grant or deny a marriage license.
The non-party county clerks can not be bound by the injunction absent a determination that they were “in active concert or participation” in a proceeding to which they were a party. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazelton Research, Inc., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969) It can not be credibly argued that the other county clerks acted in concert with the defendants to deny marriage licenses to the plaintiffs. A county clerk lacks authority to overrule the decision of another clerk to issue a marriage license. In fact, none of the other county clerks were identified in the complaint, let alone accused of acting in concert with the named defendants to deny the marriage licenses.
You need to realize that government in California is not organized under the same lines as the U.S. government.
Executive power in the U.S. government is fully vested in the President of the United States; there are no independently elected officials that also exercise executive power. The executive branch is responsible to the President, and the President is responsible for the acts of the Executive Branch, and has the power to unilaterally overrule any executive actions of other members. Thus, the President is always a proper party when seeking injunctive relief from enforcement of a federal law, because the President is liable for any executive action that results in a concrete injury to a particularized legal interest (such as the denial of a tax refund).
In California, executive power is divided among a host of state and local officials, independently elected. When seeking injunctive relief from the enforcement of state law, the proper defendant is the official who enforced the law against the plaintiff.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:45 pmA rehearing would result in a default judgment.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 7:52 pmIt seems that the most disturbing aspect of the DOMA thing wasn’t so much the ruling as the grounds it was decided upon. They didn’t just say it was unconstitutional because of states rights, they said that the law was merely motivated by bigotry and thus it was invalid. So now there’s a precedent for striking down other laws on the grounds that it is merely “bigoted”.
Comment by CK (ae4bf1) — 6/26/2013 @ 5:54 pm
There is also the issue that the Supreme Court has declared advocates of traditional marriage to be haters, rather than people who hold a legitimate alternative position.
This does not surprise me, other than they got 5 and not just 4 to be so outspoken about it. It is where the logic ends up. If you determine in legal precedent that homosexuality is simply an equal expression of human behavior to heterosexuality, then to advocate a difference is to promote discrimination, not the free exercise of religion.
But hey, Christians were blamed for the world’s ills by the Romans, too.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:24 pmFromm what I read, this ruling is poorly written.
In equal protection challenges, the challenged policy is measured against the appropriate level of scrutiny. It did not claim that the statute lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. Instead, it held that “no
legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.” United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307, slip op. at 25-26 (Jun 26, 2012) But it did not examine what these interests are and weigh them against the “purpose and effect”. It also did not identify what level of scrutiny was used, or whether it was based on sex discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination. Thus, lower courts would be unable to determine from this ruling if sexual orientation classifications receive some sort of heightened scrutiny.
Indeed, what is a court to make of the continued validity of Davis v. Beason’s holding that protecting and promoting heterosexual marriage is a compelling interest? 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890) Was that holding overruled sub silentio? Or did that interest merely fail to overcome the injuries caused by DOMA?
On the other hand, it is certain Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006) It had overruled a district court ruling which has eerily similar language to that used by Windsor. Citizens for Equal Protection, 368 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D.Neb. 2005)
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:36 pmComment by Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:36 pm
Thank you for the dialogue, but the discussion about the level of scrutiny has always been above my legal education scale.
My comments are based on the snippets I’ve seen of Scalia’s comments about the majority decision.
I guess if a ruling is poorly reasoned, it will come out poorly written.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/26/2013 @ 8:49 pmRandy, a particular property owner whose tax is raised would have standing.
True, so Prop 13 is safe as I noted above. But what about more subtle things, like term limits? I can see term limited politicians having standing to sue, but I’m not so sure anyone other than the state has standing to respond.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:14 pmI do wonder if Windsor will be used as an excuse for the non-party state and local officials to refuse to enforce Proposition 8.
As I explained above, they were not subject to the injunction, since it only binds the named parties. Under Article 3, Section 3.5, of the California Constitution,
SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative
agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no
power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a
statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an
appellate court has made a determination that such statute is
unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a
statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit
the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a
determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by
federal law or federal regulations.
The above is interpreted to allow officials to refuse to enforce a state law if a substantially similar law was struck down by an appellate court. (Otherwise, California would have been required to enforce the flag desecration ban until it was explicitly struck down.)
Which brings Windsor into this. How many state and local officials would interpret Windsor as giving them authority to refuse to enforce Prop 8, on the basis that if it was challenged in court, Windsor would foreclose any defense on the merits? John c. Eastman argues the opposite of course. I do expect that the courts will decide if Windsor obviates any legal defense of Prop 8.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:32 pmChris Christie slams DOMA ruling:
“I don’t think the ruling was appropriate,” said Christie, who is running for reelection in a blue state, one in which Democrats have hailed the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.
elissa (1aa61b) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:40 pm“I think it was wrong,” Christie continued, calling it “typical of the problem we see” in New Jersey’s own Supreme Court.
He blasted the U.S. Supremes for substituting “their own judgment for the judgment of a Republican Congress and a Democratic President. In the Republican Congress in the ‘90s and Bill Clinton. I thought that Justice Kennedy’s opinion was, in many respects, incredibly insulting to those people, 340-some members of Congress who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, and Bill Clinton.”
“He basically said that the only reason to pass that bill was to demean people. That’s heck of a thing to say about Bill Clinton and about the Republican Congress back in the ‘90s. And it’s just another example of judicial supremacy, rather than having the government run by the people we actually vote for,” said Christie, who recently appeared with Clinton at a Clinton Global Initiative conference.
MD, it was a Due Process balancing test if not created, perfected, by O’Connor in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The protectible governmental interest did not outweigh the individuals’ right to enjoy the benefit of their states’ marriage laws. Or something close to that. Many people don’t like it because the “balance” (in the sense of scale) are the left hand and the right hand of the Court.
nk (875f57) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:40 pmThey did not conduct a thorough measuring of these interests. We know the Court rejected rational basis, but declined to specify if it was due to sex discrimination or sexual orientation discrimination.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/26/2013 @ 9:44 pmI don’t know if CJ Roberts is playing politics or he’s calling these cases as he sees them. But if he’s playing politics, he’s not very good at it.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/27/2013 @ 5:39 amEverything is kabuki, DRJ, to them;
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/6/26/223210/512/crimenews/-Rachel-Jeantel-Court-Antics-and-How-Martin-Profiled-Zimmerman
narciso (3fec35) — 6/27/2013 @ 5:48 amEither this is a typo or Obama just told a press conference in Africa that we have “a bunch of states that don’t recognize the Supreme Court.” he also said he thought all states should recognize another state’s legal gay marriage.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/27/2013 @ 5:49 amGreat link, narciso. Thanks.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/27/2013 @ 5:55 amThat’s the main criticism of the balancing approach. That it’s too nebulous and prone to arbitrariness and even caprice. It made people on the right, as well as the left, to be distrustful of the Reagan appointees. When Planned Parenthood came out, gun rights advocates started worrying just as much about getting the Second Amendment before the Supreme Court as they did about gun control statutes. They could easily see the Court finding an individual right to keep and bear arms outweighed by the state interest to maintain the peace.
nk (875f57) — 6/27/2013 @ 5:57 amAnyone who heard the radio interviews Obama did in the years before he went into national politics knows that if he had his way, none of us would recognize the Supreme Court after he was done with it.
L.N. Smithee (55f81e) — 6/27/2013 @ 5:58 amA typo on the teleprompter? A telepromptypo?
nk (875f57) — 6/27/2013 @ 6:02 amThe balancing always works so their pet issue, abortion, gay marriage, affirmative action, gets preference.
narciso (3fec35) — 6/27/2013 @ 6:04 amHere’s the next battle. Does Full Faith and Credit apply? Will Glenn Grenwald get a fiancee visa for his Brazilian? Is a brazilian fiancees unlawful polygamy? How many is a brazilian? Am I making my coffee too strong?
Seriously, is it Full Faith and Credit or simply state recognition? Because states also recognize foreign country marriages, for one example.
nk (875f57) — 6/27/2013 @ 6:09 amIt truly isn’t being glib (although various liberals may want to believe otherwise) to say that a dumbing down of the concept of traditional marriage in the Western World opens the way — certainly from a standpoint of symbolism and desensitization — to accepting the concept of polygamy.
The Supreme Court ruling seems quite fitting in light of one aspect of the most recent presidential election, but also because the current president reportedly is bisexual.
Mark (67e579) — 6/27/2013 @ 6:41 amI should also add that judicial power is clearly independent of executive power. State judges are clearly not employees, agents, or servants of the defendants, nor that they are subject their control and supervision. And while they have no authority to lift the injunction nor directly interfere with its operation, lest they be found to be acting in concert with the defendants, neither are they required to aid and abet it.
Consider the case of the plaintiffs marrying and then getting into a legal dispute with someone who was not a party in the district court. The other party arguies that the plaintiffs’ marriage are invalid due to Proposition 8. The Superior Court judge may make one of three holdings with respect to this.
– Dispose of the case on other grounds, refusing to comment on the validity of the marriage.
– Hold that plaintiffs’ marriages are invalid due to Proposition 8.
– Independently conclude that Proposition 8 violates some provision of the Constitution, and hold that the marriages are valid.
What is clear is that the state judiciary is not bound by the district court’s holding, nor are they bound by the injunction. Indeed, judges can solemnize marriages , and of course the ruling does not require them to solemnize same-sex “marriage”.
Which brings up the California Supreme Court. They are unlikely to review such a case if the Court of Appeal disposed of it without deciding if the plaintiffs’ marriages are valid. But if the lower court ruled on the validity of the plaintiffs’ marriages, they would likely take it, and have to rule on whether Proposition 8 is consistent with the Constitution. They will not be bound by the district court ruling, though of course they are bound by Windsor. And their ruling will undeniably apply across the state.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/27/2013 @ 6:51 amIf they decide a law is crimethink, they will act not only to prevent it’s enforcement, but actively work against it, hence Walker’s charade, Brown and now Harris’s refusal to defend it,
narciso (3fec35) — 6/27/2013 @ 6:57 amThey used this approach at the Salem witch trials’
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/06/scalia-doma-vs-vra/66623/
narciso (3fec35) — 6/27/2013 @ 7:00 amI think the question of polygamy is interesting for the following reason-
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 6/27/2013 @ 7:12 amit seems the decision was based more on the whims and preferences of the justices than legal reasoning; so any judgements about polygamy will be likewise.
I predict that any favorable disposition on polygamy will wait until they think the “I told you so” effect will be minimized.
Then again, maybe I should predict they will rule favorably on polygamy when they feel like it.
Either this is a typo or Obama just told a press conference in Africa that we have “a bunch of states that don’t recognize the Supreme Court.”
Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/27/2013 @ 5:49 am
Yet another example of his dishonest his prior position was on SSM. You know, when he claimed his religion informed his politics and he believed marriage should be limited to a man and a woman.
JD (b63a52) — 6/27/2013 @ 7:46 amAskeptic – I agree that the majority got the standing issue wrong in _Hollingsworth_. That said, I don’t see how Congress has the power to undo it. They simply don’t have the authority and the Supreme Court would tell them so.
aphrael (659a8d) — 6/27/2013 @ 12:41 pmSince this is an open thread, the Obama bundler who despite making Bernie Madoff look like small time operator committed no crime that Obama’s DoJ could discern is being sued by the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission for committing crimes:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-27/corzine-officially-charged-cftc-filing-false-reports-commingling-funds-and-other-vio
Bottom line: no jail time for this crook.
Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/27/2013 @ 3:12 pmLook squirrel; but consider the source;
http://news.yahoo.com/christian-pundits-theyre-real-victims-gay-marriage-fight-141007658.html
narciso (3fec35) — 6/27/2013 @ 3:38 pmThe fact that both [Obama and Romney] are descended from recent polygamous ancestors when no other Presidental candidate ever was is
That wasa first i didn’t realize. In 2008 both major Presidnetial candidates were born outside the cointinental United States (the lower 48) and I am not sure taht happened even once before.
I had some errrosd about Barack Obama’s father. While he did sort of get expelled from harvard for polygamy (or lying) he hadn’t actually married his secoind white american wife before the divorce from Stanley Ann Dunham.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/27/2013 @ 4:27 pmThe district court ruling only binds the named defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation.
It is clear that state legislators are not part of the above group. Those of them who support Prop 8 will not be stopped by this ruling from refusing to recognize same-sex “marriages” that any of their employees enter into, or deny them benefits that are available to married persons.
This principle applies even more so to state judges and other officers of the state judiciary, who of course are not officers, agents, servants, employees, or attorneys of the defendants. The ruling does not stop state judges from refusing to recognize any same-sex “marriage” their employees enter into and deny benefits available to married couples. The ruling does not stop that.
And the ruling does not require them to recognize same-sex “marriages” when deciding cases in their courts. While they can not prohibit the defendants from issuing marriage licenses to the plaintiffs, they can refuse to treat a same-sex “marriage” as valid if, for example, the parties are all private individuals.
And of course there is the matter of private individuals themselves. If state law requires them to provide a benefit on the basis of marriage, they can refuse to recognize same-sex “marriages”.
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/27/2013 @ 11:14 pmWheels within wheels?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/28/2013 @ 10:15 amDr. David: Here’s How Mohammed al-Dura Really Died
Windsor bears its ugly fruit.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/28/same-sex-benefits-michigan/2473121/
Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/28/2013 @ 6:19 pmBack to TWA Flight 800 and the mob etc.
The Mob and Angela Clemente
At the end of February, a 300-page report, tersely titled, “New York Systemic Corruption,” was received for review by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General in Washington. In three bound volumes, it detailed a series of oft-made, and explosive, allegations: that in the 1990s, while trying to stem the Colombo family war, federal prosecutors and agents for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New York knowingly allowed two moles in the mob to kill while they were on the government’s payroll….For nearly 15 years, Ms. Clemente, 48 and a self-professed “forensic analyst,” has waged an independent and improbable campaign to prove that the government turned a blind eye to as many as 39 murders committed in New York by turncoat gangsters it paid to work as informants.
Through interviews in the underworld and by prying loose documents from classified archives, her unusual citizen-sleuthing has taken her deep into the local version of the James (Whitey) Bulger case, which is now being tried in Boston. Not only into the annals of the New York mob, but also, in a strange, octopus-like fashion, into corollary inquiries into Islamic terrorism, the Kennedy assassination, even the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
She’s missing TWA Flight 800. But then, that’s been better covered up.
Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:34 pmI haven’t got the links right now, but also:
1) $1.2 million in cash was probably stolen in JFL airport, and maybe something else was attempted.
2) Anthony Pellicano apparently has access to FBI files (??) about Michael Jackson. they were just leaked., which means the Anthonmy Pellicano detective agency is not dead or something.
3) FBI cutting back on agents handling Mafia informers.
Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 6/30/2013 @ 1:44 pm