tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post2125967905172100362..comments2023-10-09T04:11:47.358-07:00Comments on Not A Potted Plant: Article III Standing May Determine Status Of MarriageBurt Likkohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-57483825909795624142010-08-12T18:49:57.008-07:002010-08-12T18:49:57.008-07:00I find it hilarious that opponents of same-sex mar...I find it hilarious that opponents of same-sex marriage are urging judicial activism - they want the courts to ignore the black-letter law on standing and let the intervenors appeal anyway on the pretense that they have standing because IT'S NOT FAIR. <br /><br />I always thought it was those squishy liberals who wailed about courts following the law instead of choosing the result they deemed "fair".mythagohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138471078836187498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-45637305847521667842010-08-12T14:37:17.137-07:002010-08-12T14:37:17.137-07:00Now you can get a taste of how I felt in response ...Now you can get a taste of how I felt in response to <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html" rel="nofollow">this decision</a>.<br /><br />Taxpayer standing is limited to Establishment Clause violations, <i>see Flast v. Cohen</i>, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), and then only when the Establishment Clause violation is caused by a legislative rather than an executive action. <i>Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation</i>, 551 U.S. 587 (2007). I happen to disagree with the holding in <i>Hein</i>, but it is the law of the land nevertheless.<br /><br />Moreover, if the prohibition of an activity violates the Federal constitution, it should never have been in the state's constitution in the first place, therefore there is no injury. Now you can enjoy the taste of how circular it can get when judges decide to address standing rather than substance. Ain't we got constitutional law fun now?Burt Likkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13589532.post-2659044496299725152010-08-12T14:17:32.817-07:002010-08-12T14:17:32.817-07:00If this is allowed to stand and the proponents of ...If this is allowed to stand and the proponents of Prop 8 are denied an appeal, the whole situation reveals itself to be fraudulent.<br /><br />This is more relevant when noticing that the 8th Circuit has already ruled that there is NOT a constitutional right to SSM.<br /><br /><i>how is it that you are hurt if your gay neighbors get married?</i><br /><br />Because YOUR tax money is being spent to support an activity that ought to, by amendment to YOUR state's constitution, be illegal.<br /><br />Further the 9th circuit - no matter where they fall - has every incentive to take this case. Otherwise, we have one impeachable, demonstratably biased district judge's opinion so far against <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/glrts/ceptbrng71406opn.html" rel="nofollow">another Circuit court</a> that has already thrown out Walker's logic.<br /><br />Also, I'll note that, since Prop 8 was sponsored by a civil group OVER the objections of Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, they ought to have standing in support of that which they sponsored.<br /><br />To try to make an end-run around the judicial system - attempting to make the ruling stick by playing games and dodging the appeals process - is ridiculous.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03466940518082972363noreply@blogger.com