The Best Coverage of the Ninth Circuit’s Prop. 8 Ruling

Posted February 10th, 2012
Shon R. Hopwood

This was a big week for same-sex marriage. On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit struck down California’s Proposition 8 on equal protection grounds. Then on Wednesday, the state of Washington voted to approve gay marriage.

A lot has been written in the last few days and here is some of the best coverage by people on both sides of the debate. For coverage of the Ninth Circuit’s actual opinion, I highly recommend Lyle Denniston’s piece at SCOTUSblog. Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy also shares his thoughts on the case.

For discussion about what the Supreme Court is likely to do in the case, you should read Mike Sacks at HuffPo, Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy, and Robert Barnes at the Washington Post.

Several people are suggesting that Judge Reinhardt’s opinion was directly aimed at Justice Kennedy. And that the Ninth Circuit’s opinion was narrowly drawn to obtain an “affirm” from the Supreme Court. Those pieces include David Savage at the L.A. Times and Daniel Wood at the Christian Science Monitor. Perhaps the best view comes from a former Kennedy clerk: Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy.  

Will Oremus at Slate argues why many gay leaders do not want the Ninth Circuit’s ruling at the Supreme Court because they fear a ruling from the Court that would set-back the gay rights movement.

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate carves up the few arguments proponents of Prop. 8 put forward in the Ninth Circuit and at the Federal District Court level.

Several of the GOP presidential candidates blasted the ruling. And the National Review argues that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling thrwarted the views of 7 million California voters.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Any commentary or opinions about cases, legal theory, legal strategy, court procedure, and all other content are the express opinion of their writer and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Cockle Law Brief Printing Co (“Cockle Law”), Cockle Bur, Inc. (“Cockle Bur”) its employees, owners, or users of this site. These commentary and opinions should be relied upon at your own risk. These commentary and opinions are not legal advice.

All information made available at www.Cocklebur.com is for informational purposes only. This website, and all content contained herein, is not meant to provide legal advice or answer specific legal question. It is not a substitute for legal advice. You should neither act, nor refrain from acting, based on information contained in this site; nor should you consider any blogs or other content posted on www.Cocklebur.com to be a substitute for proper legal research conducted by a licensed attorney. Visitors to this site should consult a licensed attorney before relying on any information found on this site.

To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Cockle Law informs you that any U.S. federal tax advice or information contained in this site (including any blog post or on any site linked to or from www.Cocklebur.com) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (I) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (II) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

*Select to accept terms
CAPTCHA Image
*