Patty and I had dinner with people last night. It was good and funny. It also tired us out. Tonight it's work, then laundry and packing and stuff for Chicago. All focus all the time. Also, yes, White Collar and Covert Affairs. More Buffy and Angel soon!
Oh hey, I made it to the final three in WIAD. Eeek. I feel like I'm on Project Runway, no challenge wins and going to Bryant Park.
Significant updates coming to my Dragon*Con schedule soon.
Everyone should check out this piece on Tiger Beatdown that's actually several months old but I just got linked to today. It starts as a review of a book I have no desire to read because it sounds annoying. But the piece isn't really a book review, it's more about how we do discourse on the Internet. Note, I am not offering this to you in the spirit of "Oh, I have been wrong!" but in the spirit of "this sort of shit weighs on me all the time; there are no right answers more often than I'd like to think; sometimes I really hate myself; I try to do good; Good works -- very much including mine -- can be motivated by all sorts of things including spite and insecurity; God, there really is a lot of crap out there that needs to be called out; sometimes, this isn't fun anymore; please, tell me this is all hard for you too."
That said, check out Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on the Muslim Community Center slated for lower Manhattan. This is a long one, complex, and goes to a lot of places. In some ways its far from Olbermann's best rhetoric, because it's so all over place, but I respect its meanderings because he says a lot of things in it that are right to say, that another writer might have left out because it makes for a less efficient argument. It is also, among other things, in places a difficult listen, especially if you lost someone at the WTC. But it's worth listening to, all the way through.
Things I'm not linking too because they are from the department of the obvious: "Only children as social as peers" and "Teen sex doesn't always hurt grades."
According to NCLR, this means that all briefings must be in by Nov 1 and all oral arguments heard by Dec 6, and that while the 9th Circuit Court is not under any specific deadline for ruling after that, apparently having an expedited schedule like this means they're unlikely to sit on it too long.
Just for a feeling of the speediness, a case is generally heard 15-16 months after being passed to the Ninth Circuit. Lawyer types are predicting that there will be a decision 2-3 months after the hearing, putting the total time around 6 months.
You're welcome. They could, apparently, still rule that the Prop 8 proponents do not have standing to appeal, which would limit the ruling to CA. It's weird to be almost rooting for that not to be the decision in order to have the judgment expanded nationwide.
And it is still sucky and sad that it's getting dragged out longer, especially for people who'd hoped to be able to marry last week or this week. While it may prove better on a national scale that it plays out this way in the long run, that doesn't stop it sucking in the short run.
I'm afraid that wanting this ruling to be extended nationwide is an overreach. I'm nervous that there aren't five votes for it no matter how strong the argument is. And having seen Bush v. Gore and Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, I don't get the opinion that the court is going to be hamstrung by its own opinions about restricting standing. They obviously are comfortable making exceptions when it comes to making rulings justifying their ideological vies.
I'm sorry there's a stay, but I'd be more sorry if there weren't and the marriages performed in the interim were voided if the decision were reversed. That's a whole different level of suck. I also have no reason to doubt that the Ninth Court is going to legitimize and strengthen Judge Walker's awesome ruling while dealing a blow to the notion that unaffected parties can appeal rulings.
As bizarre as it sounds, I'm actually OK with it. The court has explicitly said: "In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing."
Which, roughly translates as "Please explain to the court, using very small words, why you are wasting its time with this."
I'd far rather there be small careful steps that block any possible loophole for opponents than a giant leap forward that leaves a big opening for appeal.
The initial brief addressing standing must be in by September 17. Note that the 9th can rule on the standing issue at any point after the brief is filed, even before the reply and answer are filed. Early rulings tend to be more common in the lower court, though.
That said, I can't think of a case offhand where standing has been quite this complicated in the 9th. When I was taking civil procedure classes, I read a lot of cases and motions, but few of them were appellate.
Though I agree with firefly_124, I think it's more likely that this particular case will lose on standing and thus apply only to California than it will offer standing and go all the way to the supremes in a way that's meaningful for LGBT rights for the entire country.
Of course, if the proponents lose on standing in the 9th, they can appeal to the supremes, and that may lead to a more general ruling. Let's just hope it's in the favor of equal rights if that happens.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rm![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
jeliza.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-17 02:14 pm (UTC)According to NCLR, this means that all briefings must be in by Nov 1 and all oral arguments heard by Dec 6, and that while the 9th Circuit Court is not under any specific deadline for ruling after that, apparently having an expedited schedule like this means they're unlikely to sit on it too long.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-17 02:15 pm (UTC)I know that is speedy by these standards, but it's still sucky and sad.
On the other hand, good that they are stepping in, or else this would affect CA and nowhere else.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-17 02:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-17 02:46 pm (UTC)And it is still sucky and sad that it's getting dragged out longer, especially for people who'd hoped to be able to marry last week or this week. While it may prove better on a national scale that it plays out this way in the long run, that doesn't stop it sucking in the short run.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-17 11:55 pm (UTC)I'm sorry there's a stay, but I'd be more sorry if there weren't and the marriages performed in the interim were voided if the decision were reversed. That's a whole different level of suck. I also have no reason to doubt that the Ninth Court is going to legitimize and strengthen Judge Walker's awesome ruling while dealing a blow to the notion that unaffected parties can appeal rulings.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-18 07:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-17 03:12 pm (UTC)Which, roughly translates as "Please explain to the court, using very small words, why you are wasting its time with this."
I'd far rather there be small careful steps that block any possible loophole for opponents than a giant leap forward that leaves a big opening for appeal.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-17 10:09 pm (UTC)That said, I can't think of a case offhand where standing has been quite this complicated in the 9th. When I was taking civil procedure classes, I read a lot of cases and motions, but few of them were appellate.
Though I agree with firefly_124, I think it's more likely that this particular case will lose on standing and thus apply only to California than it will offer standing and go all the way to the supremes in a way that's meaningful for LGBT rights for the entire country.
Of course, if the proponents lose on standing in the 9th, they can appeal to the supremes, and that may lead to a more general ruling. Let's just hope it's in the favor of equal rights if that happens.