General Discussion

dsc

(53,371 posts)

36. The issue in this decision was who gets to defend initiatives

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 11:45 AM

Jun 2013

The majority said that in order to defend the initiative you have to be an agent of the state. The dissent said that the state supreme court should be able to decide who will defend the initiative in court. The majority decision means that if a state refuses to defend a law in federal court there is no remedy for those who want to see the law defended.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I wonder why Sotomayor dissented on the Prop 8 case [View all] justiceischeap Jun 2013 OP

she probably wanted a decision on the merits nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #1

That sounds right to me. closeupready Jun 2013 #3

That is what I think, too. morningfog Jun 2013 #40

That will be interesting to read JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #2

It wasn't decided on the merits Shrek Jun 2013 #4

Republicans usually favor a more restrictive view on standing. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #7

RIght, thanks. Its Process, elleng Jun 2013 #29

She probably thought they did have standing cthulu2016 Jun 2013 #5

Because the standing argument is fairly strong, legally (nt) Recursion Jun 2013 #6

+1 n/t X_Digger Jun 2013 #13

She has often suggested she is not much in favor of gay people or our rights Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #8

But she voted in favor of defeating DOMA, didn't she? nt justiceischeap Jun 2013 #9

No, she apparently voted with the pro-8 minority. kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #24

No she did not frazzled Jun 2013 #26

She voted with the majority to overturn the DOMA. n/t PoliticAverse Jun 2013 #28

Those are two different cases KamaAina Jun 2013 #38

She did not vote wrong on Prop 8. morningfog Jun 2013 #42

What if one other justice had voted that way? KamaAina Jun 2013 #46

They heard argument on the merits, they just didn't decide. morningfog Jun 2013 #47

There was no "Pro-8" minority. morningfog Jun 2013 #41

lol wat Drunken Irishman Jun 2013 #10

That is bull frazzled Jun 2013 #11

Because she clearly not much in favor of gay people. Renew Deal Jun 2013 #33

"often suggested"? RudynJack Jun 2013 #20

Quotes? Links? Renew Deal Jun 2013 #32

Kindly cite what you are claiming? nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #35

Please provide some evidence to back up the claim... Skinner Jun 2013 #37

not posting one example of this when you said it's happened "often" speaks against your statement CreekDog Jun 2013 #44

I think in an odd way both sides sort of voted to drop Prop 8 rurallib Jun 2013 #12

Thanks! nt justiceischeap Jun 2013 #14

Because she didn't agree RudynJack Jun 2013 #15

So, if I understand correctly, she felt SCOTUS justiceischeap Jun 2013 #16

She didn't write her own RudynJack Jun 2013 #21

Yes, that is exactly it. She felt standing had been conferred by the CA supreme court. morningfog Jun 2013 #43

I'm guessing she wanted a ruling. malthaussen Jun 2013 #17

I'm not sure... sweetloukillbot Jun 2013 #48

The issue was whether a private citizen had standing BainsBane Jun 2013 #18

Probably because she's Roman Catholic JW2020 Jun 2013 #19

Again, she voted to strike down DOMA. So, that dog don't hunt. nt justiceischeap Jun 2013 #22

but they love that dog so much! Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #23

Like Scalia isn't? No, that had nothing to do with it. 6 of the Justices are R.C. by the way. pnwmom Jun 2013 #25

And she wasn't RC when she voted to strike down DOMA? onenote Jun 2013 #30

So you think she'd RudynJack Jun 2013 #31

So is Scalia Renew Deal Jun 2013 #34

Read the dissent. elleng Jun 2013 #27

The issue in this decision was who gets to defend initiatives dsc Jun 2013 #36

Which, while great on this one dbackjon Jun 2013 #39

yea it is a bad thing for other cases dsc Jun 2013 #45