-
Around KQED- Assembly Speaker Perez: California Public Records Act Changes Will Not Go Through
- Prop. 8 at the Supreme Court: What You Need to Know
- Yes, Young Adults DO Value Health Insurance, Poll Shows
- What Would You Get San Francisco for Its Birthday?
- Quick Read: Immigration Bill Could Help Deported Parents Reunite With American Children
- And The Winner Of The World Food Prize Is … The Man From Monsanto
- The Martini: This American Cocktail May Have An International Twist
- Amid Growing Open Records Controversy, Mayors Promise To Comply With Law
- Thomas Friedman on 'The Next New World'
- Exposing America's Worst Charities
Subscribe
Subscribe to News Fix and you'll never miss a post!
Connect with KQED News on Twitter
For the latest updates from KQED News, follow us on Twitter.
Follow @kqednewsAbout the Blogger
Jon Brooks is News Fix’s editor, host, chief blogger and Bay Area newshound, searching for what’s news in the region.
Have a news tip? Email Jon.
KQED's Bay Area News Blog
Category Archives: Courts
Judge Rules Against Calif. Control of Prison Mental Health Programs
Comments Off
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge on Friday rejected Gov. Jerry Brown's bid to regain state control of inmates' mental health care, citing systematic failures to reduce prison suicides, provide timely care and hire enough staff. The decision is … Continue reading
News Pix: Prop. 8 Oral Arguments, Bay Bridge Bolts Snap, Devil's Slide Tunnel Opens
Comments Off
Crowds of people outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C protest the Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday, March 27. (Jacob Fenston/KQED) On Tuesday March 26, the rainbow flag was raised over Berkeley City Hall to mark arguments in the … Continue reading
DOMA Oral Arguments Explained
Comments Off
For almost two hours Supreme Court justices heard arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The court covered wide ground, once again spending a significant amount of time on the topic of standing. This time the questions were around whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, had the legal right to sue. As in Proposition 8, the standing question could give the court the option to avoid the case by ruling that it should not have gone through the court system.
The justices also spent time on whether the federal government should be in the marriage business at all, or if that should be left to the states. Several justices also challenged President Barack Obama's 2011 decision to stop upholding DOMA, and what kinds of precedent that sets. Solicitor General Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. often tried to bring up the equal protection clause, and whether it applies to gays and lesbians. However, the court often took that question and went back to federal versus states legal rights.
UC Davis Law Professor Vikram Amar discussed the oral arguments with KQED News.
Standing
Amar: If one is going to read tea leaves based on the oral argument, it seems as if the court is not inclined to do something huge, in striking down the laws of 40 states that currently prohibit same-sex marriage. My big take-away from this has always been, the court did not really want to take these cases. … They may end up doing nothing at all, because both cases may get resolved on procedural standing grounds.
The basic idea is courts exist to decide crisp disputes, not just answer questions everyone wants answered. So unless you have somebody who is a plaintiff who has a lot at stake, and you have a defendant who is an appropriate defendant, then the court simply should not be able to render a ruling.
Proposition 8 Oral Arguments Explained
Comments Off
After a long and winding road, Proposition 8 had its day at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. For more than an hour, the justices of the high court grilled attorneys on California's same-sex marriage ban.
The oral arguments were dominated by the question of standing, which focused on whether the authors of Prop. 8 have the legal right to defend the measure in court when the state refused to do so. Justices also grappled over the meaning of marriage and what role the court system should have in changing long-held traditions.
The questions that justices ask can shed light on their concerns and how they might rule. KQED spoke with Vikram Amar, a professor of law at UC Davis, about what certain arguments could mean.
Standing
Amar: I thought there were three, maybe four, maybe five justices already who expressed significant skepticism about whether the sponsors have standing to defend Prop. 8.
Audio, Transcript of Supreme Court Proposition 8 Oral Arguments
Listen to the oral arguments on California's Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court this morning.
Read the transcript:
Read all the of the case filings in the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases.
The 'Other' Ted: No on 8 Attorney Prepares for Supreme Court Oral Arguments
Comments Off
When Theodore Boutrous, Jr. hopped on the phone the other day from Washington, he was giddy. “We just got a unanimous ruling at the Supreme Court!” He was referring to the 9-0 decision on behalf of his client, an insurance company fighting a class action case.
I asked Boutrous, who goes by “Ted”, how many times he’s argued in front of the Supreme Court. “Twice, “ he said. “And I’ve got 18 votes!” When I suggested he should retire while he has a perfect record, he emailed back “It’s tempting!”
Since the start of the Prop. 8 debate in federal court four years ago, Boutrous has been overshadowed by his high profile colleague, attorney Theodore Olson. Both are partners at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (Boutrous in the Los Angeles office, Olson in D.C.) and have worked together for nearly 30 years. Olson is renowned in legal circles as a leading conservative, which makes his pairing with David Boies (whom he faced on opposite sides of the Bush v. Gore case in 2000) so interesting.
Boutrous may not get the “ink” they get, but he’s been an integral part of the legal strategy against Prop. 8.
Prop. 8 Co-Author: Striking Down Prop. 8 Would Be Judicial Activism
Andy Pugno, a co-author of Proposition 8 and general counsel at ProtectMarriage.com, is part of the legal team defending the same-sex marriage ban at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday.
Pugno discusses with KQED's Scott Shafer the major themes of their legal argument as well as what changing public opinion means for the case.
Even though prominent Republicans, Fortune 500 companies and the public is becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage, Pugno said he thinks it will not have much of an effect on the justices.
"I think the justices are accustomed to avoiding being sucked into a political debate," Pugno said. "I think they'll be mindful of their limited role as judges to interpret existing law, not to make new law."
