Prop 8 Question

[earl maltz]

Is there any case law which suggests that Article III has any applicability 
to defendants?

At 02:10 PM 1/20/2010 -0800, Steve Sanders wrote:
>In a similar vein as Justice Scalia's critique of the use of legislative
>history, can we assume that the groups that formally pushed Prop 8 will
>accurately and properly represent the voters who enacted it?  How do we know
>what considerations and motives influenced any given pro-Prop 8 voter?  What
>if the groups pushing it (and now defending it) used deceptive arguments or
>lied to the voters about facts ("this will mean gay marriage is taught in
>schools," etc.), meaning the enactment could have been based, at least in
>part, on fraud?  We accept this in political campaigns, but aren't standing
>requirements (or, cf the FRCP 23 requirements for representing a class)
>usually more demanding?
>
>Steve
>_____________________________________
>
>Steve Sanders
>Attorney, Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice group, Mayer Brown
>LLP, Chicago
>Co-editor, Sexual Orientation and the Law Blog
>Adjunct faculty, University of Michigan Law School (Winter term 2010)
>Email: stevesan at umich.edu
>Personal home page: www.stevesanders.net
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> > [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
> > Howard Wasserman
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:42 AM
> > To: Eric Segall; dcruz at law.usc.edu
> > Cc: mtushnet at law.harvard.edu; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > Subject: RE: Prop 8 Question
> >
> > Probably because it was passed via popular democratic
> > processes, so the back-up defender of the law is the private
> > organization(s) that worked to enact it. It does not seem (to
> > me) different than granting standing to members of the
> > legislature to defend a piece of enacted legislation that the
> > executive refused to defend.
> >
> >
> > Howard M. Wasserman
> > Associate Professor of Law
> > FIU College of Law
> > University Park, RDB 2065
> > Miami, Florida  33199
> > (305) 348-7482
> > (786) 417-2433
> > howard.wasserman at fiu.edu
> > Faculty Page:http://law.fiu.edu/faculty/faculty_wasserman.htm
> > http://ssrn.com/author_id=283130
> > ________________________________________
> > From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> > [conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Segall
> > [esegall at gsu.edu]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:50 AM
> > To: dcruz at law.usc.edu
> > Cc: mtushnet at law.harvard.edu; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > Subject: Re: Prop 8 Question
> >
> > And that satisifes Article III?
> >
> > >>> David Cruz <dcruz at law.usc.edu> 01/20/10 10:05 AM >>>
> > The official ballot proponents of Prop 8 were granted
> > standing to intervene as defendants.
> >
> > David B. Cruz
> > Professor of Law
> > University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los
> > Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A.
> >
> > On Jan 20, 2010, at 6:48 AM, "Eric Segall" <esegall at gsu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > I am guessing the answer is obvious but can someone tell me
> > how there
> > > is federal jurisdiction over this case given that the State of
> > > California is not defending the validity of Prop 8. Could lobbyists
> > > defend an Act of Congress that the DOJ refused to defend?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Eric
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
> > > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > >
> > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> > viewed as
> > > private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > messages that are
> > > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> > > (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To
> > subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> > viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> > and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> > messages to others.
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To
> > subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> > viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> > and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> > messages to others.
> >
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.