Showing posts with label california supreme court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label california supreme court. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

Perry V. Schwarzenneger: Upcoming Live Broadcast of Ca Supreme Court


Today the California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear the next round of testimony in the ongoing battle over Proposition 8. Today's hearing will held to answer the question of whether or not Protectmarriage.com and backers of Prop. 8 have the legal standing to defend the law in court if authorized state representatives decline to do so. For those who may recall, this question was previously put before the Ninth Circuit Federal Court who found that they simply didn't have enough precedent to answer the question on their own and thus sent the matter back to the State Supreme Court to verify before the federal trial could continue.....and so here we are today.

Todays session will be held at 10:00 a.m. pst on the California Channel and will also be broadcast on their website at :


If I find an embeddable broadcast, I will be sure to attach it to this post at the day progresses. Stay Tuned! 

Thursday, February 17, 2011

The Supremes Take The Case


...The California Supreme Court that is..not the bouffant becoiffed divas of Motown....though it sure would make this trial alot more bearable.

When last we left Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the ninth circuit court of appeals could not..or would not...tackle the issue of whether the individuals at protectmarriage.com had legal standing to defend Prop 8 in court if the Governor and Attorney General would not. This leaves many of us wondering...where did our love go? Why could they not answer this themselves? Instead of coming to their own determination, they elected to send a certified question back to the California Supreme Court to get their official opinion on what state law says on the matter. Your may remember that they were same court who's tragic love child was upholding Prop 8 in the first place. My reaction to this was one of frustration and my reasoning for this is twofold: