Gay Marriage

Indiana Attorney General Pushes For Ten Judge Panel To Decide Marriage

GZ_Headshot_flag.2013WLKY reports that Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller (pictured) is pushing for an unorthodox process of appeals for the state's recent marriage ban overturn.

Over the weekend, the AG's office released a statement saying they had filed a new motion late Friday. In this motion, AG Zoeller has proposed that the entire 10-judge 7th Circuit Court of Appeals should hear the appeal on the marriage ban overturn, while the state's usual procedure to decide this matter would be a three-judge panel.

For LGBT Indianans in gay marriage limbo, Zoeller claims that moving the case before the full court would speed up the process. Further, as WLKY points out, in a separate move on Friday the 7th Circuit court decided to combine Indiana and Wisconsin's legal proceedings into one decision and put it on the fast track, which will surely speed the process for both states.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. With respect: 1. The AG is unrepentant, irredeemable pond scum, but, as any law dictionary will explain, such an "en banc" request is not "unorthodox" but common in cases of wide impact such as this one. In subjective terms, he's gambling that the more judges who rule, the more are likely to rule in his Troglodytic favor.

    2. People from Indiana such as myself are not called "Indianans" but "Hoosiers." [Personally, I've been called many other things, too, but that's another issue.]

    Thank you.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Jul 14, 2014 10:34:06 AM


  2. of course he's doing this. that court is loaded with bush and reagan appointees.

    Posted by: woody | Jul 14, 2014 10:54:56 AM


  3. This is not nearly as unusual as you make it sound. Don't write posts about legal issues if you're not: (a) a lawyer; or (b) willing to take ten minutes to have some idea what you're talking about. Thank you.

    Posted by: Wow | Jul 14, 2014 11:01:04 AM


  4. I think the best they can hope for is to drag this out as long as possible. That's why Van Hollen, Wisconsin's AG, took so long to file the appeal. They know they're on the losing side of this, Van Hollen admitted it when he took up the defense of the ban. If they go to the full bench, it will drag it out and there's a chance they might get a couple more arguments to use in their final appeal to SCOTUS.

    Posted by: Mike | Jul 14, 2014 11:13:12 AM


  5. To be clear, the normal appeals process is before the three judge panel, the result of which can be appealed to the full Circuit. What the Indiana AG is asking possibly cuts out one step in the process/ In other words, marriage equality will be affirmed quicker this way than by the normal process.

    Posted by: jason MacBride | Jul 14, 2014 12:42:33 PM


  6. What WOW said.

    The 7th Circuit is a Federal Appelllate Court which oversees appeals from the Federal District Courts of a number of different states. Your reference to "the state's usual procedure to decide this matter" is not just poorly phrased, but also nonsensical.

    Posted by: BusterLA | Jul 14, 2014 5:07:28 PM


  7. A pet peeve of mine: people from Indiana are not "Indianans." We are "Hoosiers."

    Posted by: Chris S. | Jul 14, 2014 7:24:14 PM


  8. Ugh, please don't ever use the word "Indianan". Like nails on a chalkboard. Proud Hoosier here.

    Posted by: Brendan | Jul 15, 2014 2:04:20 AM


  9. The 7th will decide what happens re 3 or 10 judges. They can grant it or they can deny it. There hasn't been an en banc hearing on same-sex marriage AT ALL, ever. The 9th Circuit denied the request in the CA Prop 8 case over two years ago [June 5, 2012]. The 9th also denied en banc review of the SmithKline v. Beecham case which made us a suspect class [June 24, 2014].

    Butch Otter [that REALLY otter be a porn name, I'd like there to be a few butch otters making a living in porn], Gubbernor of I da hoe, has asked for an en banc review of "his" loss in the marriage game and he wants it to review the SmithKline decision as well [though he lost even under the LOWEST standard of review] on June 2, 2014. The 9th's denial for en banc review of SmithKline DID have vocal dissenters among the judges.

    One comment I saw said that 99% of cases go to 3 judge review with only 1% going direct to en banc. Butch and Greg will most likely be disappointed.

    Posted by: ben~andy | Jul 15, 2014 3:08:32 AM


  10. How the hell do these states AFFORD all the court crap when it is clearly not going to work? Thought there was NO money for people in the States. Doesn´t any one care at all? Let the homeless die in the streets? or eat from garbage cans? TOTAL NONSENSE

    Posted by: L G. | Jul 15, 2014 3:57:23 AM


  11. The panel we drew is one of the best we could have hoped for. Most of the 7th Circuit was appointed by Regan or G.W. Bush. We got a Clinton appointee, the only Obama appointee, and Rick Posner, who seems to have had evolving thoughts on same-sex marriage. A full court is likely to vote against us and for the States. That's why they want the full court review.

    I am hoping that Wisconsin drag-assing around on their appeal for 5 weeks will fuel a denial of the en banc appeal. The 7th Circuit really does not grant many cases an *initial* en banc hearing. Since Wisconsin took it's own sweet time appealing, that pretty much shreds the "urgency/critical importance" argument. The 7th Circuit knows this is going to the high court anyway - and there's no requirement to request an en banc rehearing before appealing to SCOTUS.

    The 7th has already combined and accelerated. I hope that's the extent of their accommodations. It should be.

    Posted by: Lee | Jul 15, 2014 10:37:56 PM


  12. So I missed my typo of Reagan's name above. I never liked him much anyway.

    Posted by: Lee | Jul 15, 2014 11:05:08 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «World Health Organization Endorses PrEP For Men Having Sex With Men« «