FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog

And, the proponents are confident that Proposition 8 wll be upheld.

The official proponents of Proposition 8 and ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8, the campaign committee responsible for its enactment by voters today said it is “profoundly gratified” that the California Supreme Court granted all their requests by agreeing to accept original jurisdiction of three cases challenging the measure’s validity,  granted their request to intervene in the cases as Real Parties in Interest, denied the request of others to delay implementation of Proposition 8, and refused to allow outside groups to directly participate in the litigation.

Flap can count as well.  Three California Supreme Court Justices that opposed gay marriage plus Justice Kennard (who refused to sign the order and voted to deny the petitions) equals four votes upholding the Proposition and the traditional definition of marriage.

Flap bets the final vote will be 6-1 with Moreno dissenting to uphold Proposition 8 simply because a MORON would have to rule this is a revision of the Constitution and not an amendment.

Stay tuned as the briefs are prepared.

The California Supreme Court agreed to decide today the legality of California’s Proposition 8 that restored the traditional definition of marriage (one man and one woman) to the California Constitution.

At the urging of both sponsors and opponents of Proposition 8, the justices granted review of lawsuits challenging the Nov. 4 initiative. Approved by 52 percent of the voters, Prop. 8 restored the definition of marriage - a union of a man and a woman - that the court had overturned May 15.

In today’s order, the justices let Prop. 8 remain in effect, denying a stay that would have allowed county clerks to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples until the case was decided. No hearing has been scheduled.

But, a stay was DENIED, meaning gay marriage in California remains banned.

The order is here. (Pdf)

In other items of interest in the order:

• The motions to intervene in the cases by Proposition 8 Official Proponents et. al. are GRANTED.

• Briefs are due on or before December 19, 2008. Replies by January 5, 2009.

• The issues to be argued and briefed:

1. Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to the California Constitution? (see Cal. Const.,art.XVIII, §§ 1-4.)
2. Does Proposition 8 violate the separation of powers doctrine under the California Constitution?
3. If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?

• Amicus curiae brief application and brief are due on or before January 15, 2009. Reply to amicus curae brief is due January 21, 2009.

• Justice Moreno joins the order but voted to stay proposition 8.

• Justice Kennard would deny these petitions without prejudice to the filing in this court of an appropriate action to determine Proposition 8’s effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before Proposition 8’s adoption.

California Supreme Court Justices, from top left, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, Carlos R. Moreno, Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin Baxter and from lower left, Ming Chin, Chief Justice Ronald M. George and Carol Corrigan

Team McClintock is exceedingly optimistic that Tom McClintock has beaten Charlie Brown in CA-4.

The latest batch from Nevada County dropped us by 60 votes, partially offset by a 30-vote gain out of El Dorado County, leaving us with a lead of 592 today.  Nevada County is rapidly running out of ballots – we estimate it has roughly 1,000 yet to count.  Everything else – approximately 25,000 more ballots — are from counties that we are carrying.

Butte and Placer counties comprise 23,000 of those ballots and are expected to release their numbers in a single batch when they complete their full counts later this week or early next.  In short, the fat lady hasn’t begun singing yet, but she’s on stage and appears to be wearing a McClintock button.

And, in the race to replace Tom McClintock in the California State Senate, apparently the Fat Lady has already sung.

The California Supreme Court legal challenge to Proposition 8

The links:

S168047
KAREN L. STRAUSS, et al., Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.

• Immediate Stay Request
• Petitioner’s Exhibits
• Petitioner’s Motion for Judicial Notice
• Amended Petition
• Motion to Intervene
• Motion to Intervene by Official Proponents
• Official Proponents Opposition to Motion by Campaign
• Petitioners’ Opposition to Motion to Intervene
• Request for Judicial Notice
• Preliminary Opposition
• Preliminary Response from the Attorney General
• Letters submitted in support of petition:
  The Bar Association of San Francisco et al.
  Forty-Four Members of the State Legislature
  Anti-Defamation League et al.
  Beverly Hills Bar Association et al.
  Los Angeles County Bar Association
  Sacramento Lawyers for Equality of Gays and Lesbians et al.
  Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez
  Constitutional Law Center (Monterey College of Law)
  Hastings College of the Law
  Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein
  Richards, Watson, & Gershon
  The Ecumenical Catholic Church
  Donna M. Ryu (Hastings College of the Law)
• Letters requesting denial of petition and request for stay:
  The Pacific Justice Institute
  Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Chapman University Law)
  Steven Meiers
  Kingdom of Heaven
  American Center for Law and Justice

---

S168066
ROBIN TYLER, et al., Petitioners v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

• Immediate Stay Request
• Amended Petition
• Motion to Intervene
• Motion to Intervene by Official Proponents
• Official Proponents Opposition to Motion by Campaign
• Preliminary Opposition
• Preliminary Response from the Attorney General
• Debra Bowen’s Preliminary Response
• Letter from counsel for petitioners in response to letter submitted by Pacific Justice League
• Letters submitted in support of petition:
  Beverly Hills Bar Association et al.
  Los Angeles County Bar Association
  Sacramento Lawyers for Equality of Gays and Lesbians et al.
  Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez
  Constitutional Law Center (Monterey College of Law)
• Letters requesting denial of petition and request for stay:
  The Pacific Justice Institute
  Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Chapman University Law)
  American Center for Law and Justice

---

S168078
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al. Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.

• Petition for Writ of Mandate
• Amended Petition
• Motion to Intervene
• Motion to Intervene by Official Proponents
• Official Proponents Opposition to Motion by Campaign
• Judicial Notice
• Preliminary Opposition
• Preliminary Response from the Attorney General
• Letters submitted in support of petition:
  Beverly Hills Bar Association et al.
  Los Angeles County Bar Association
  Sacramento Lawyers for Equality of Gays and Lesbians et al.
  Manning & Marder, Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez
  Constitutional Law Center (Monterey College of Law)
• Letters requesting denial of petition and request for stay:
  The Pacific Justice Institute
  Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Chapman University Law)
  American Center for Law and Justice

---

S168281
ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN LEGAL CENTER, et al., Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.

• Petition for Writ of Mandate
• Motion to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice
• Motion by Campaign to Intervene
• Letter submitted in support of petition:
  Sacramento Lawyers for Equality of Gays and Lesbians et al.

---

S168302
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES AND CALIFORNIA WOMEN’S LAW CENTER, Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.

• Petition for Writ of Mandate
• Motion for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition

---

S168332
CALIFORNIA COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, et al., Petitioners v. MARK B. HORTON, et al.

• Petition for Writ of Mandate

Flap will update as the cases proceed.

Why Does Obama Want To Appoint An Attorney General With A Long History Of Controversial Pardons?

Holder Played A “Key Role” In The Pardoning Of Marc Rich. “Now Obama needs to turn his attention to another member of that committee - Eric Holder, a former No. 2 in the Clinton Justice Department who played a key role in processing the infamous last-minute pardon of the notorious tax-cheat fugitive Marc Rich.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Bus,” New York Post, 6/12/08)

 

• “Holder, One Of Two Remaining Members Of Obama’s Vice Presidential Search Committee, Was Always Expected To Be A Lightning Rod.” (Jonathan Weisman, “Next On The GOP List: Eric Holder,” The Washington Post’s “The Trail” Blog, blog.washingtonpost.com, 6/12/08)

Holder Reviewed The Pardon Of “Fugitive Financier” Rich. “The criticism Thursday centered on Obama adviser Eric H. Holder Jr., who is scrutinizing candidates to be the Democratic presumptive presidential nominee’s running mate. As deputy attorney general under President Clinton, Mr. Holder reviewed the last-minute pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich.” (Jim McElhatton, “GOP Hits Another Obama Adviser,” The Washington Times, 6/13/08)

 

• Holder “Waved Through” Rich’s Pardon In The Final Days Of The Clinton Administration. “As Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general, he was the gatekeeper for presidential pardons. Most famously, he waved through the pardon for fugitive financier Marc Rich in the waning days of the Clinton White House.” (Jonathan Weisman, “Next On The GOP List: Eric Holder,” The Washington Post’s “The Trail” Blog, blog.washingtonpost.com, 6/12/08)

“Charged With 51 Counts Of Fraud, Tax Evasion And Illegally Trading With Iran, Mr. Rich Fled To Switzerland In 1983 But Won A Pardon From Mr. Clinton In 2001.” (Jim McElhatton, “GOP Hits Another Obama Adviser,” The Washington Times, 6/13/08)

 

To Obtain A Pardon, Rich Retained Former White House Counsel Jack Quinn, Who Circumvented Formal Pardon Application Procedures. “[R]ich wanted a pardon and he retained Jack Quinn, former counsel to the president, to lobby his old boss. … From the start, the Rich lawyers ignored the government’s established rules for pardon applications. Instead of making a formal application to the Office of Pardons in the Justice Department, Quinn sent the application directly to the White House in late December of 2007.” (Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Op-Ed, “Obama’s VP Search Mistake,” New York Post, 6/5/08)

 

Documents Emerged Which Indicated That Holder Had Recommended Quinn, And “Gave Substantive Advice To Quinn Along The Way.” “Two days later, documents in support of the pardon were sent by Jack Quinn to Eric Holder. It was Holder who had originally recommended Quinn to one of Rich’s advisers, although he claims that he did not know the identity of the client. And he gave substantive advice to Quinn along the way. According to Quinn’s notes that were produced to Congress, Holder told Quinn to take the pardon application ’straight to the White House’ because ‘the timing is good.’ … When Holder received the Rich materials, he did no independent research to determine their veracity and appears to have barely reviewed them.” (Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Op-Ed, “Obama ’s VP Search Mistake,” New York Post, 6/5/08)

 

• Holder Conducted No Independent Research To Scrutinize Quinn’s Request On Behalf Of Rich. “When Holder received the Rich materials, he did no independent research to determine their veracity and appears to have barely reviewed them. … [H]e never took the time to check anything and simply told the White House that he was ‘neutral to positive’ on the pardons.” (Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Op-Ed, “Obama’s VP Search Mistake,” New York Post, 6/5/08)

• “Neither Clinton Nor Holder Ever Consulted With The Pardon Attorney.” (Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Op-Ed, “Obama’s VP Search Mistake,” New York Post, 6/5/08)

“Officials At The U.S. Attorney’s Office In New York Were Understandably Infuriated When They Learned About The Pardon And Accused Rich Of Deliberating Bypassing Their Office.” (Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Op-Ed, “Obama’s VP Search Mistake,” New York Post, 6/5/08)

 

“In 2002, A Congressional Committee Reported That Holder Was A ‘Willing Participant In The Plan To Keep The Justice Department From Knowing About And Opposing’ The Rich Pardon.” (Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Op-Ed, “Obama’s VP Search Mistake,” New York Post, 6/5/08)

 

The Wall Street Journal: “As Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration, he played a role in the Marc Rich pardon that also deserves to be fully vetted - all the more so if Mr. Holder is on the short list to be Mr. Obama’s Attorney General.” (Editorial, “Ex-Friends Of Barack,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/12/08)

Good Question, why?

Previous:

Eric Holder To Be Obama’s Attorney General?

Updated:

As a commenter aptly pointed out Flap only mentions one. Sorry the post was running long and I did not include the others. Here is the link.

• FALN
• Susan Rosenberg
• Linda Evans