If the state is named in a lawsuit, they're supposed to defend it. The fact they named state officials and not the state is why it's something of a sham. Rather deliberate.
Denny, now you are confusing me. You wrote in response to me that the state was not a defendant and then that the state was named in the suit? The case was Perry v. Schwartzenegger. I'm not familiar enough with legal niceties to know whether normally a case would be person x v. state or person x v. official. But Roe v Wade was person v. official (the then atty gen of Texas), to give one famous example. I certainly see no reason to believe the Prop 8 case was a sham. I appreciate that you like the decision but not how it was arrived at. Incidentally, just read that the Nebraska Attorney General will not defend in court an extremely restrictive abortion law passed by the legislature and now challenged. I don't want to debate the merits of that law, or abortion. Just to point out it is not that novel that the gov & atty gen did not defend in court.
Uh, no. The state wasn't named in the suit, which is what makes it seem like a scam. Scam, as in, find a sympathetic judge and sue guys who won't defend the case. The Nebraska case is a bit different, because SCOTUS already struck down a similar Nebraska law in 2000. It's in compliance with a previous court ruling, of sorts.
I'm no lawyer, but it appears there are legal reasons where suing an individual in his official capacity is the preferred route rather than suing the state itself: barfo
Sympathetic judge, Denny? A conservative originally nominated by Reagan, whose nomination was stalled due to outrage over his very antigay litigation, not to mention membership in private clubs that excluded blacks and women of any color? He was at first successfully blocked by Nancy Pelosi but when the first Bush became pres, there were enough Republicans in Congress to get the nomination through. Vaughn Walker was so loathed in the GLBT community that some slammed Boies and Olsen for not trying to get him off the case. It was Vaughn Walker who sued the founder of what were then known as Gay Olympics on behalf of USOC to have "Olympics" removed, even though everyone and their neighbor uses the term. He won that case, which could just be called doing his job for his client (although it should be noted his clients were all well-heeled corporations). But then he demanded compensation. The founder was in the final stages of AIDS and Walker demanded and got as compensation his home, furniture, and all assets, leaving this dying man literally homeless and destitute. Believe me, our community does not forgive this soon. It was Judge Walker who ruled that police did not used excessive force when they put hot pepper spray into the eyes of environmental protesters. The protesters were seated on the floor with hands bound, so clearly not a threat, when the police held their heads and dabbed pepper spray directly into their eyes with cotton swabs. I am not trying to get off into irrelevancies, just to say that the notion that this judge was "biased" towards gays or civil liberties or liberal causes is just hokum. And actually the Supremes have not ruled on laws similar to Nebraska's current (on hold) abortion law.
How can it not be seen as a sympathetic judge if there wasn't a state defense? Especially considering all the left-wing dirt you found dug up on him.
Huh? Left wing dirt? What have I "found dug up" that is not true? Sorry, but you have descended into smears and that's where I'm out. I mean I don't have a high regard generally for the legal profession. I'm more inclined to agree with Richard III ("First thing we do, kill all the lawyers.") But it's getting into black helicopter territory to say that 2 attorneys filed a sham lawsuit in hopes of getting a biased judge and we know the judge was biased because "the left wing" has been highly critical of his past actions as lawyer and judge. In real news, Imperial County in Southeast California is petitioning to defend Prop 8 in appeal. In a front page feature in the Sunday SF Chronicle, spokespeople explained that they are not, you know, bigots. If gays would just stop being gay they'd be fine with us. Pretty similar to the antigay American Family Association saying no mosques should be built anywhere in the US unless the participants renounce Islam.
The dirt you dug up in your previous post (I quoted it) shows the GBLT community thinks he's biased, even if the other way. So it speaks to bias, no? The choice of where a law suit is filed is often the result of "shopping for a sympathetic judge." It's a huge part of the strategy of litigation. For us to achieve the result we want, this case has to go to the supreme court who is going to rule that all states have to recognize marriages from other states and that all the states have to give equal treatment (protection) to their citizens. We don't want it to be seen as a sham, using legal trickery and activist judges along the way. I repeat, the 52% who voted for it deserve to be fully heard before what they voted into law is overturned.
