You know, if the Court ends up holding that proponents of Prop. 8 lack standing to defend it in federal court, then that nullifies both the 9th Circuit's and Judge Walker's rulings, as those rulings were rendered in "cases" without valid plaintiffs.
Federal standing law doesn't necessarily affect state courts, however, so the California Supreme Court's holding that Prop. 8 had effectively
Popular Posts
-
Williams v. Illinois: bad Confrontation Clause result, but not a major setback: plurality only. Alito writes for plurality. Dissenting coali...
-
Individual mandate okayed as a tax.
-
Beyond what I wrote yesterday about Perry (which now seems improbable in light of Kennedy's blather for the Court in Windsor, and Scalia...
-
My prediction about the outcome was basically right, but I was seriously wrong about, and unfair to, Justice Kennedy. Not only would he stri...
-
Scotusblog dealing with rumors - unsubstantiated and unlikely, TBTG -- that Pres will attend Court session. That could actually raise separa...
-
The mighty Ed Whelan has noticed it too. He also takes on the question: who in fact wrote the "joint dissent"? Ed first floats th...
-
The Wall Street Journal agrees with me -- and explains, better than I did or probably could, exactly why the taxing power discovered in the ...
-
Back now.I. Obamacare and RaichWhile we're watching and analyzing the Obamacare oral arguments, I'll add only this: I see no reason ...
-
The Williams v. Illinois plurality opinion could be subtitled "Trial Judges Never Get Confused." That's certainly an assumptio...
-
Tom Goldstein (Scotusblog): "The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to ...