UPDATED:Breaking: Many sources indicating Prop 8 trial decision this evening (Open Thread)

Come join the conversation. This post is an Open Thread on the decision and we'll have more on this and the inevitable appeals and a roundup of where to get more information.

UPDATE: Everyone's moving on it....but now reports it's a hoax... an ornate and fully executed one, if so.  (6:23pm)

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Well that was exciting.

    Posted by: Tom | Jul 8, 2010 9:28:42 PM

  2. No Prop 8 decision yet, but what did happen is that a federal judge in Massachusetts declared DOMA unconstitutional!!!


    Posted by: peterparker | Jul 8, 2010 9:36:47 PM

  3. My guess is the sources were correct, but then Walker changed his mind in light of the MA DOMA rulings. Could be a good or bad sign depending...either way, Walker seemingly has to address today's DOMA rulings, either to cite as precedent/support or to rebut as not applicable.

    Posted by: Sean | Jul 8, 2010 9:38:36 PM

  4. It wasn't a hoax. I work at the building across the street from the Federal Building and we got an office wide email informing us that the building management were notified by the CHP.

    Scout's honor!

    Posted by: Jake F | Jul 8, 2010 9:46:19 PM

  5. Unconfirmed reports from the judges office suggest the ruling, scheduled for today, was postponed due to today's ruling in the BART cop trial (manslaughter) and the subsequent closure of the BART system and suspected civil unrest across the Bay Area.

    Posted by: James | Jul 8, 2010 10:36:58 PM

  6. @Sean: It couldn't be used as precedent. Only rulings from a higher court are precedent. Rulings by different courts on the same level simply produce different laws in their respective jurisdictions. Even if the Third Circuit ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, a District Court in California couldn't site it as precedent.

    Posted by: Jon B | Jul 8, 2010 11:28:24 PM

  7. how hard can it be? Issue a goddamn ruling and opinion already.

    Posted by: TANK | Jul 8, 2010 11:50:43 PM

  8. While some of us are STILL YOUNG for chrissakes!

    Posted by: TANK | Jul 9, 2010 12:14:33 AM

  9. Judges typically give a 48 hour notice. The media requested a 48 hour notice. I don't see why Walker wouldn't honor that request. That said, this rumor was ridiculous on it's face. The earliest a ruling would come down would be Monday if notice was given today. I rolled my eyes when I heard it.

    Posted by: Mike | Jul 9, 2010 12:50:20 AM

  10. @Sean: just because a Mass. district court decision isn't precedent for a N.D. Cal judge, doesn't mean that he wouldn't cite it or distinguish it in the decision. District courts frequently cite outside district court decisions.

    Posted by: JPinWeHo | Jul 9, 2010 11:08:51 AM

  11. Tank:

    Judges, unlike you, like to take the time to carefully think out their decision and find support in the law. As a former clerk to a federal judge, I can tell you that he definitely isn't lallygagging. Drafting a well-reasoned and supported judicial opinion in a case that's likely to go to the Supreme Court is NOT easy work.

    Posted by: Jersey | Jul 9, 2010 11:13:24 AM

  12. The MA case is precedent, it's just not binding on peer or higher courts. Often, precedent from a novel trial is cited in all subsequent cases resulting in a de facto form of case law around the country even if not reviewed by a higher court. Not many cases make it to the SC. With all the legwork done in the first trial, it's easy to work with the result than against it.

    Posted by: anon | Jul 9, 2010 12:00:32 PM

  13. Anon:

    That would be a HUGE mistake in a case like this. Forget about the fact that it will eventually end up in the Supreme Court. It WILL end up in the 9th Circuit, where anything can happen. If cited as anything other than dicta in this case, it would be ridiculous. I think Judge Walker probably knows that.

    Posted by: Jersey | Jul 9, 2010 12:17:29 PM

Post a comment


« «Your Temporary Andy Signing Off...« «