Argue that Prop 8 denies equal protection, proponents do not have standing<\/i><\/p>\n
by Brian Leubitz<\/p>\n
A busy day in the Prop 8 case today, as the City of San Francisco filed their brief<\/a>, and the original plaintiffs filed their reply brief<\/a>. The links will take you to Scribd to read them.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court asked two questions, one on the merits of the case, the other on whether the Prop 8 proponents have standing to appeal the case. After discussing why they don’t think there is standing, both move quickly on to the merits. The arguments are two-fold, that Prop 8 violates due process of the law, and that it is a violation of the equal protection clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments.<\/p>\n As the March 26 hearing approaches, I’ll dig into all of the briefs and summarize what to watch for at oral argument. You can peruse all of the various filings at AfER’s website<\/a>. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Argue that Prop 8 denies equal protection, proponents do not have standing<\/i><\/p>\n by Brian Leubitz<\/p>\n A busy day in the Prop 8 case today, as the City of San Francisco filed their brief<\/a>, and the original plaintiffs filed their reply brief<\/a>. The links will take you to Scribd to read them.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court asked two questions, one on the merits of the case, the other on whether the Prop 8 proponents have standing to appeal the case. After discussing why they don’t think there is standing, both move quickly on to the merits. The arguments are two-fold, that Prop 8 violates due process of the law, and that it is a violation of the equal protection clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments.<\/p>\n