Conley
02-08-2012, 02:53 PM
In the months leading up to Tuesday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that California’s Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, most legal observers were certain it would not be the last word on the contentious issue of same sex marriage.
The U.S. Supreme Court would make the final decision.
But several legal scholars said Tuesday that’s not a certainty. And if it does end up before the high court, the justices might not overturn the appeals court ruling.
That is largely because the opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the 9th Circuit’s leading liberal voice, was tightly drawn and rested on the most narrow legal grounds.
Rather than making a sweeping statement that there is a fundamental right to marry the person of one’s choice under the U.S. Constitution, the ruling focuses on the specifics of Proposition 8 and the unique circumstances of the same sex marriage issue in California, said Julie Greenberg, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.
The court reasoned that because the measure eliminated a right that same sex couples had in California, and there was no legitimate or rational reason to do so, it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
“This is totally to the unique situation of Prop. 8, and of California granting a marriage right, then taking it away,” said Greenberg, who has followed the marriage issue. “We are the only state where that has happened.”
As a result, the high court may be less inclined to step in, said David B. Cruz, a law professor at the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California.
“It’s undeniably narrow, though it could have been incredibly sweeping,” he said of the ruling. “And I think that makes it less likely the Supreme Court would grant review.”
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/feb/07/experts-high-court-might-not-rule-on-prop-8/
Keeping the ruling so narrow and considering the focus on only the state of California could be major factors in this. I wonder what kind of timeline we're looking at. It's very interesting to me from a legal perspective but I don't really care who wins in this case.
The U.S. Supreme Court would make the final decision.
But several legal scholars said Tuesday that’s not a certainty. And if it does end up before the high court, the justices might not overturn the appeals court ruling.
That is largely because the opinion written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the 9th Circuit’s leading liberal voice, was tightly drawn and rested on the most narrow legal grounds.
Rather than making a sweeping statement that there is a fundamental right to marry the person of one’s choice under the U.S. Constitution, the ruling focuses on the specifics of Proposition 8 and the unique circumstances of the same sex marriage issue in California, said Julie Greenberg, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego.
The court reasoned that because the measure eliminated a right that same sex couples had in California, and there was no legitimate or rational reason to do so, it violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
“This is totally to the unique situation of Prop. 8, and of California granting a marriage right, then taking it away,” said Greenberg, who has followed the marriage issue. “We are the only state where that has happened.”
As a result, the high court may be less inclined to step in, said David B. Cruz, a law professor at the Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California.
“It’s undeniably narrow, though it could have been incredibly sweeping,” he said of the ruling. “And I think that makes it less likely the Supreme Court would grant review.”
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/feb/07/experts-high-court-might-not-rule-on-prop-8/
Keeping the ruling so narrow and considering the focus on only the state of California could be major factors in this. I wonder what kind of timeline we're looking at. It's very interesting to me from a legal perspective but I don't really care who wins in this case.