In re Marriage Cases
I'm getting word through the grapevine that the Supreme Court of California will announce its decision in In re Marriage Cases tomorrow at 10 AM. List of briefs, including one by our own Prof. Choper here. Thoughts? Predictions?
Personally, while I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, the present court is far too conservative. I'm guessing 6-1 affirming the Court of Appeal judgment.
MOVING UP: In light of the surprising decision. I've been out of the office all day so I haven't had a chance to read or digest it at all, but my initial reaction is a) this is wonderful b) this just gave the conservatives the rallying cry for November.
Personally, while I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, the present court is far too conservative. I'm guessing 6-1 affirming the Court of Appeal judgment.
MOVING UP: In light of the surprising decision. I've been out of the office all day so I haven't had a chance to read or digest it at all, but my initial reaction is a) this is wonderful b) this just gave the conservatives the rallying cry for November.
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 3:23 PM
22 Comments:
4-3 affirming
Armen and 2:30: who are your predicted dissenters?
I think Justice Moreno will dissent. I'm also predicting CJ George authoring the opinion of the court.
news accounts said that George's questions at oral argument indicated that he might buy the constitutional argument. i'm guessing 4-3 one way or the other.
In a great moment of wishful thinking, I predict 4-3 reversing the CA: George, Kennard, Werdegar and Moreno voting to reverse, Chin, Baxter and Corigan dissenting.
I'm guessing 8-1!
Why does the Amicus say it's by Choper but at the end says it was prepared by a Keker & Van Nest attorney?
I know that organizations and businesses sometimes pay (or get) other ppl to write amicus for them, but why would a law professor submit an amicus prepared by a 3rd party?
The question is also the answer isn't it? I just assumed that JC doesn't have the time or inclination to write an amicus brief. Keker drafted something he likes, so they used his status as a premier Con Law scholar to get an amicus brief on record.
Choper isn't the only Boalt prof who filed an amicus -- Prof. Herma Hill Kay is on the Family Law Professors brief...
Yeah, that happens all the time. In the big securities case from this term, Stoneridge, a bunch of business profs (and some former SEC chairmen), filed an amicus brief largely written by a certain former Boalt sec reg lecturer who was at another firm cross the Bay.
choper doesn't have a bar number, so likely can't actually file anything without it being submitted by a "real lawyer." not an uncommon practice for law prof briefs.
WOW
4-3 OVERTURNING
in majority: George, Kennard, Moreno, Werdegar
nice call 3:01
Here is the opinion: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
You know, as a male who is (1) straight and (2) borderline-allergic to marriage, this opinion has little direct effect on me.
And yet I can't even begin to say how happy it makes me. Maybe there is some sense left in the world after all.
armen, clearly you didn't watch the oral argument! Chief Justice George was a lion. He's this lesbian's secret crush. The opinion is notable because it is also the first time a state supreme court has applied strict scrutiny to sexual orientation. And, in that sense, the opinion is far stronger than Goodridge out of Mass.
Goodwin Liu was on the Con Law professors brief too. And Joan Hollinger was on the family law brief. Actually, Prof. Hollinger should get a bunch of credit for playing a key role in establishing California as the most progressive state for the rights of gay parents. Because child welfare issues are such a big part of the marriage debate, her work helped lay the groundwork for today's opinion. And, Professor Kay's work helped establish strict scrutiny for sex discrimination in California, which is closely related to s.o. discrimination. Thanks Professors Hollinger and Kay!
This is GREAT NEWS! I've been farklempt all afternoon! My god, especially on this court, w/ Schwartzenwanker's good tidings. It is most hopeful and delightful - I'm going out tomorrow to stock up on lavender bride's maid dresses. This calls for at least several bottles of champagne to the dome. Bottoms up!
KQED was doing extensive coverage of it and had Prof. Kay. Nothing too surprising said, except she was introduced as the professor from the "Boalt Hall School of Law." I could just imagine Dean Edley tearing his hair out while listening.
What is the dress code for under our gowns tomorrow? Can we wear shorts and t-shirts?
shirts and shorts? are you kidding? it's going to be over 90 degrees. I'm wearing my birthday suit and flip flops.
Congratulations to any other Boalties who passed the bar yesterday!
Post a Comment
<< Home