It should not be surprising that Brian Brown, the President of the National Organization for Marriage, is less than happy that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decided to not hear Prop 8′s appeal. This, of course, sends the whole issue to the US Supreme Court. What is more, Brown does not even seem to grasp the most basic elements of many of the cases that he flings around like rice at a wedding.
“Today the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to re-hear the decision striking down Prop 8. Millions of Californians who gave their time and treasure to protect marriage deserve better. We are calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to preserve our democratic rights and overturn this action of judicial arrogance. As Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, dissenting from the 9th Circuit’s refusal to hear the case, stated:
Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation. Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012). Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it.
“This is a gross miscarriage of justice that we trust the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court will rectify.”
I would probably not rely too heavily on the US Supreme Court to change the Walker ruling. O’Scannlain made the mistake that it was obvious that the only motivating factor in Prop 8 was animus towards a minority group. As for the Prop 8 case, Brown might want to note that Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Romer v. Evans and was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Those three also voted in favor of Lawrence v. Texas.
Meanwhile, only Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are around from the dissenting side of both opinions. Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer are likely to be joined by Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagen and Scalia and Thomas are likely to be joined by Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
There is a strong possibility that they may not even take up the case given the excellent work that Judge Vaughn Walker did.