Quick recap: The Ninth Circuit heard the appeal by proponents of Prop 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, in which the original ruling found Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional. The Ninth upheld that ruling. Those fighting for Prop 8 then petitioned the court for an en banc hearing, where eleven judges on the Ninth Circuit would hear the case, rather than the usual three. Survey says no:
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. The mandate is stayed for ninety days pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. If such a petition is filed, the stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court.
Wow.
AFER points out that this only goes one of two places from here:
- Couples start getting married again in California; or
- Our case for marriage equality goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Things are about to get interesting.
[h/t Joe]
[...] Burroway has reproduced an interesting exchange from the Ninth Circuit’s ruling denying an en banc hearing for the Prop 8 case. Three of the judges who dissented from the denial [...]
I am Thrilled! (but, am I the only one, with this facing THIS activist right wing court, who is just a little bit concerned?)
Judges choose their career path because they like the interpreting-the-law stuff. Being ‘right-wing’ is constitutional. Prop 8 isn’t. Sometimes they’ll symbolically dissent. Sometimes they screw up a bit (they are people). But it’s not as though you have the legislative branch hearing the case. oO