I see you're working that law degree again. No, refusing to hear it would not have the same effect as dismissing it for lack of standing. The former would leave the 9th Circuit ruling in effect. The latter strikes it down.
Let's analyse this.
The SCOTUS dismisses the case for lack of standing - Same sex marriage is legal in California.
The SCOTUS refuses to hear the case - Same sex marriage is legal in California.
What's the difference?
I'll answer my own question to save you the time.
So what if the Supreme Court looks anti-democratic? That's what they are supposed to be. They aren't elected and serve for life for a reason: to make them independent of political (i.e. democratic) pressures.
It's one thing for the SCOTUS to overturn Prop 8 because they find it unconstitutional but if they overturn it on a BS legal technicality that 2 politicians who are opposed to Prop 8 used to thwart the will of the voters of California then they will look like they don't care about the will of the majority and support the tyranny of the minority.
It was wrong the first time you said it and it's still wrong the second time. The voters who passed Prop 8 DO have someone to represent their position in court. They have the attorney general of California (or whatever their equivalent is called). He/she chose not to pursue the case. A SCOTUS ruling that some special interest group does not have standing is irrelevant to that question.
I was right the first time and I'm right the second time.
Brown and Harris who are both opposed to Prop 8 refused to defend Prop 8 in court even though they are mandated to do so. It's a BS legal technicality that they used to thwart the will of the voters of California and the SCOTUS shouldn't allow it to succeed.
Who cares what "it will look like"? The Supreme Court isn't there to make it look like they are doing whatever the majority want. They are there to rule according to law, including telling the majority to go frick itself sometimes. It's set up this way intentionally so that they are independent of political influence.
I don't need you to lecture me about the legal duty of the SCOTUS.
I'm just telling you it won't look good for the SCOTUS to dismiss the case on a BS legal technicality.
A ruling that they don't have standing would be based on that conclusion. I don't know how the court will rule. In general, voters are not "directly involved" in a legal sense in the effects of the elections or propositions they vote in/on.
Usually, a Governor and Attorney General don't refuse to defend a law that the people passed so this is a special case where they do refuse to defend it because they are both oppose to it.
The SCOTUS should and can take that into consideration.
For the same reason that you can't institute a criminal prosecution against someone if the D.A. decides not to, you can't start litigating on behalf of the state to uphold its laws if the A.G. decides not to. The law designates who has that responsibility and right, and you didn't make the cut.
That's a criminal case. This is a civil case. Because of the fact that Brown and Harris both refuse to defend Prop 8 the SCOTUS should allow the proponents of PROP 8 to defend it since their vote is directly affected by the Court's decision.