9th Circuit Denies Idaho Governor’s Request For ‘En Banc’ Hearing Of Gay Marriage Ruling: READ

EMBLEMThe U.S. 9th Circuit Court of appeals yesterday denied a request by Idaho Governor C.L. 'Butch' Otter for an ‘en banc’ hearing of its appeal of U.S. District Magistrate Candy Dale’s decision from May of this year which struck down the state’s same-sex marriage ban. 

The Idaho Statesman reports:

In an en banc hearing, the case would be heard before all 11 judges on the 9th Circuit instead of just three.

"I think that the governor thought that Idaho would realize a more favorable result before the limited en banc of 11 judges than a randomly drawn three-judge panel, so the denial may mean that Idaho is less likely to win," said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law in Richmond, Va., who has been monitoring gay marriage cases across the country.

Read the court's decision, AFTER THE JUMP…

14-35420 #168 by Equality Case Files


  1. PHILIE says

    I’m still trying to get over the fact that “Butch Otter” is not a lesbian porno actress.

  2. PHILIE says

    Candy Dale is the name of a popular candy shop. They really do have good candy; even multi-flavored ones.

  3. says

    I’m from Idaho, and yes ‘Butch Otter’ is an embarrassment. He has a stranglehold on the legislature and is as Reaganesque as you would imagine.

  4. Bernie says

    Butch Otter sounds like a pseudo gay leather man advertising on Craigslist.ooopppppps, maybe he does….remember Larry Craig the bathroom tapping Idaho Republican…”I am not gay” and “I have never been gay.” I just want a blowjob!

  5. ben~andy says

    Sorry, Idaho Statesman, but your “facts” are wrong. An en banc hearing for the 9th Circuit is NOT in front of “all 11 judges on the 9th circuit” as there are currently 29 judges serving on the 9th [the full roster]. But an en banc for the 9th IS in front of 11 judges while I believe all the other circuits hold en banc hearings in front of “all” of their judges.

    Also, “Fey” Otter’s hopes of pulling a more conservative panel of judges would likely be dashed even en banc. At this time, there are NINE judges appointed by Repudlickans and thus 20 who’d have been appointed by Democrats. Thus the odds of getting a “better” panel than the 2-1 [against him] he got the 1st time around are slightly against him with his most likely outcome being 6 Reasonable vs. 5 Hidebound and that is assuming no “defections” as we’ve seen in several other circuits [with reasonable Repud appointees being far in the majority of the changelings as there haven’t been any Dem appts quisling so far].

    So, “Da ho” is off to the Supremes too. Hail, hail, the gang’s all here!