Comments

  1. John says

    The “Circuit Justice” who oversees the courts in San Francisco, Justice Anthony Kennedy, could always intervene and issue a stay of his own accord. This is why U.S. Supreme Court nominations matter. These are appointments for life. And they have a lot of discretionary power.

  2. I'm Layla Miller I Know Stuff says

    THE LETTER OF THE LAW VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the “letter”) of the law, but not the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not adhering to the literal wording.

    “Law” originally referred to legislative statute, but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language. Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also a tactic used by oppressive governments.

  3. Mike says

    There is no justification under the law to issue a stay. The only reason I can think it would be done would be to placate the bigots at the expense of equal protection. No one is being harmed… as Boies and Olson have pointed out, the only harm would be on the side of gay people getting married, and I believe we are all willing to take that risk. The bottom line is this… are gay people entitled to equality under the law or not. It is that simple. If not, then the bigots are correct – I guess we can’t get married. What pisses me off the most about this, is their steadfast refusal to get them to state the obvious – they don’t like gay people, they think gay people are immoral, etc. etc. This doesn’t have shit to do about wanting to save marriage. This is about hate and using that hate as a fund raising machine. It is as plain as the light of day. The bigots know however as soon as they admit it, the gig is up.

  4. Mike says

    One more comment, the reason to me that this is so satisfying is that Judge Walker in his opinion cut to the chase and called them out. He didn’t pull any punches and laid out all their lies and distortions for all to see. They have simply no where to hide except to keep blathering the same nonsense.

  5. Timzilla says

    Interestingly, in that same speech to the Commonwealth Club (and Q&A afterwards) Boies stated that he believes the issue of the stay on resuming same-sex marriages, either way it is decided, may well prompt the Ninth Circuit to an expedited (initial en banc) result and, thereby, certainly move the case much closer to SCOTUS certiorari than the “two-years at the earliest” window most commentators have indicated. It may well get to the Supreme Court in 2011.

    It is well worth an hour of your time to watch it on the Commonwealth Club’s YouTube channel:

    http://www.youtube.com/commonwealthclub#p/u/0/0gsxtV3VqQk

  6. jay says

    I’m looking forward to hearing Scalia’s opinion if this gets to the Supreme Court. I imagine he will twist and turn like a snake to rationalize his bigotry.

    Fortunately Kagan will be there too. I’m anxious to hear her opinions and see if they meet my liberal expectations.

    Of course the S.C. could refuse to give opinions.

  7. stephen says

    Has anyone seen commentary regarding where the SCOTUS will try and find their ‘wiggle’ room?

    If the decision stands after its appeal to the 9th Circuit & SCOTUS decides not to hear it, does that trash all the silly state by state laws? Or does it have to be heard by SCOTUS in order to have those further reaching implications?

    Anyone. Anyone. Bueller?

  8. Bueller says

    Yeah, I heard Boies himself give the possible arguments the S.C. might use to overturn the decision. But I wasn’t paying attention, as usual.

Leave A Reply