Guest EXPAT Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Three GOP congressional leaders are appealing a federal judge’s ruling that declared a law prohibiting the government from recognizing same-sex marriages to be unconstitutional, according to court papers filed Friday. Private lawyers for the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group notified the federal court in San Francisco that they are asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the decision issued by District Judge Jeffrey White this week. Ruling in the case of a lawyer who works for the appeals court and who had been blocked from enrolling her wife in a family health insurance plan, White said the Office of Personnel Management could not rely on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act to deny the medical coverage. House Speaker John Boehner appointed the five-member advisory group last year to defend the marriage law from legal challenges after the Department of Justice announced it no longer would back the law in court because the Obama administration concluded it violates the civil rights of gay men and lesbians. Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy are joining Boehner in bringing the appeal, the appeal notice states. The advisory group’s two Democratic members, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, declined to participate. U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California last year introduced bills to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, but neither has been put to a floor vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Huh?! Does this group have standing? If so, how? Lucky? MsGuy? Anybody? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsGuy Posted March 1, 2012 Members Share Posted March 1, 2012 google 'legal standing', AS. Standing is judge made law and addresses a number of matters of legitimate concern to our courts. For one, without a standing threshold, every disgruntled whacko in the country could force the courts to get involved in all manner of things that folks actually affected are perfectly happy to leave as they are. The general rules do sometimes create a problem when they exclude every possible party to a matter that the court wants to speak on. In those cases the courts can just loosen the rule for that particular type of case. The queston here is who (in an adverserial system) is going to brief the court when the executive declines to defend a statute? Is the executive branch to be allowed to effectivily declare the constitutionallity of statute law w/o recourse by anyone in the courts? By the way, technically it's the House acting to protect its own statute, not the various Repubs acting in their individual capacities. And Congress may have legislated itself this sort of standing a while back; I can't remember for sure. Maybe Lucky knows more about this; it's been a long time since I have had occasion to think about this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 The queston here is who (in an adverserial system) is going to brief the court when the executive declines to defend a statute? Is the executive branch to be allowed to effectivily declare the constitutionallity of statute law w/o recourse by anyone in the courts? By the way, technically it's the House acting to protect its own statute, not the various Repubs acting in their individual capacities. And Congress may have legislated itself this sort of standing a while back; I can't remember for sure.. Thanks. That does clarify it. (Also reveals my knee-jerk that if Repubs are doing it, they must be up to something sneaky and faintly extra-legal. ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsGuy Posted March 2, 2012 Members Share Posted March 2, 2012 Also...if Repubs are doing it, they must be up to something sneaky and faintly extra-legal. I must respectfully point out that nothing in my post should be read as foreclosing that possibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TampaYankee Posted March 2, 2012 Members Share Posted March 2, 2012 Huh?! Does this group have standing? If so, how? Lucky? MsGuy? Anybody? I believe you have to have 'skin' in the game. I do not see where the House has any skin the the California Constitution. In fact, the Tenth Ammendment might prohibit them from participating. I believe that the same players in the District Court Case will have to push it to the SOTUS. I think they have filed notice of intent to do so. All the above being said, I am neither an attorney nor have I ever played one on TV. IMO, color this another PR and fund raising activity for the GOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MsGuy Posted March 2, 2012 Members Share Posted March 2, 2012 You're thinking of the Prop 8 suit, TY. This is a separate lawsuit asking that DOMA be declared unconstitutional to the extent it prohibits married gay federal employees from getting bennies for their spouses. ---- Here, I'll save you the trouble: NEVER MIND... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TampaYankee Posted March 2, 2012 Members Share Posted March 2, 2012 You're thinking of the Prop 8 suit, TY. This is a separate lawsuit asking that DOMA be declared unconstitutional to the extent it prohibits married gay federal employees from getting bennies for their spouses. ---- Here, I'll save you the trouble: NEVER MIND... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: If it is not one thing, it's another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
