Constitution of the United States of America (Photo credit: The U.S. National Archives)
This morning, the federal Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
It’s the first time that a federal appeals court has struck down a statewide ban on marriage for same-sex couples.
The court’s opinion affirmed arguments made by Equality California’s amicus brief:
Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.
Thousands of California couples and families have been denied a chance to make the same commitment in marriage that other couples treasure. Today’s ruling has moved one step closer to restoring the freedom to marry in California.
Filed under Breaking, Law
“The statute is meant to apply to ordinary people, and if an ordinary person not schooled in the law read ‘You have a right to sue,’ wouldn’t they understand that to mean: I have a right to sue in court?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. Image via Wikipedia
When Congress writes legislation that says, “You have a right to sue,” why doesn’t that mean that consumers have a right to file a lawsuit in court?
That is the question before the United States Supreme Court.
The case is about whether customers unhappy about hidden costs of the credit cards they received from CompuCredit can sue the company in court, or whether they must abide by the fine print in their contracts that said all disputes must be handled by arbitration.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said the cardholders could sue after discovering their Aspire Visa cards came with a $300 credit limit — and $257 in fees.
The court agreed with cardholders that the Credit Repair Organizations Act explicitly says that consumers have the right to sue.
The Stanford University law professor representing CompuCredit, said that arbitration satisfies that right. His argument launched the Justices into rounds of questioning on the same point.
“The statute is meant to apply to ordinary people, and if an ordinary person not schooled in the law read ‘You have a right to sue,’ wouldn’t they understand that to mean: I have a right to sue in court?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. added: “If somebody, you know, hits your car and you jump out angrily and you say: ‘I’m going to sue you.’ You are not likely to say: ‘I’m going to bring a cause of action against you.’ ”
The attorney representing cardholders agreed that Congress made its intentions clear. The statute does not mention arbitration.
The case is CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood.
Via The Washington Post.
Image via Wikipedia
On Thursday, Senate Republicans blocked law professor Goodwin Liu’s appointment to the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats fell eight votes short of the 60 needed to end a filibuster.
Liu has been even more controversial than President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominees. Because many observers view the 40-year-old as a future Democratic Supreme Court candidate, conservative groups mobilized to keep the Rhodes Scholar from appointment.
Image via Wikipedia
On Wednesday, a federal appeals court refused to allow same-sex marriages to take place in California while it considers the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the voter-approved ban on gay marriage.
California Attorney General Kamala Harris joined gay marriage proponents in urging the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to lift a stay placed on the lower court’s ruling to strike down Prop. 8.