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. Nothing!!!
Still rockin that law degree! Awesome.
Dismiss the case for lack of standing - district court ruling is the only precedent...much broader basis for striking down the law gives more reasons to strike down a gay marriage ban, BUT the precedent is only controlling in that one federal court district. (So, for instance, the state could pass another gay marriage ban, and if another federal district court within California were to hear the case, it could rule that the new law is valid even if that contradicted the earlier ruling by the other district court). Future cases or appeals brought by non-government parties probably thrown out for lack of standing before they are heard.
Refuse to hear the case - 9th Circuit ruling is the precedent...much narrower basis for striking down the law gives fewer reasons to strike down a gay marriage ban, BUT the precedent is controlling throughout the 9th Circuit, which includes Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Arizona. (So, for instance, Washington, which just voted to legalize gay marriage, could never outlaw it again in the future because the 9th Circuit's ruling was that the state can't take away the right after it has previously granted it). Future cases or appeals brought by non-government parties maybe or maybe not thrown out for lack of standing, Supreme Court silent on the issue.
If you don't see differences, then...well, I'm not surprised.
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
Whether the person bringing the action has a right to bring it is not a "BS legal technicality". It is pretty much a bedrock requirement of any case.
I don't need you to lecture me about the legal duty of the SCOTUS.
Apparently you do because you still think it matters that
it won't look good for the SCOTUS
For the third time, it's not their job to "look good". It's their job to correctly apply the law no matter what anybody thinks or how it looks.
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.
Well, that's what the standing argument in this case is about, isn't it? We'll see what happens.
That's a criminal case. This is a civil case.
A distinction without a difference. The point is that the law assigns to particular government officials the duty and right to represent it in various cases. The failure of those officials to do so does not authorize anybody who wants to to jump in and do it on their behalf. Here, the plaintiffs may not be just "anybody who wants to", so they may be found to have standing. We will see.
their vote is directly affected by the Court's decision
Nope. When a law is found unconstitutional, the government entity that enacted the law is directly affected. The people whose conduct the law regulates are directly affected. Every voter is not directly affected.
This post was edited on 3/27 at 5:26 pm