Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
Different ruling, different prop. The California court struck down Prop 22 banning gay marriage so the California passed Prop 8 putting "no same sex marriage" directly into the state constitution. If SCOTUS throws out the case for lack of standing that will impact the 9th Circuits decision since those appellants without standing were the only ones the 9th agreed to hear themselves. It invalidates the 9th's ruling because these guys should never have been allowed before a federal appellate court. So the [b]District Court[/i]'s decision will stand, but a District Court decision creates no precedent. Other District courts don't have to follow it, even the same court doesn't have to follow it. So 8 will no longer be part of the state constitution in California but the field will still be wide open.
Could you explain what you mean with 'creates no precedent'? I saw some claims that if the Court would take this route the case would only have a bearing on the plaintiffs in the Original case, but that seems a bit odd to me since Judge Walker, as far as I remember, deemed proposition 8 unconstitutional. Logically it would restore marriage rights in California, with the people/legislative left with the question if they like that status quo or not.

If you are right, then I'd say then that it seems like a very thinly veiled attempt of the conservative Justices to dodge the bullet. I don't really see how the 'liberal' Justices would necessarily accomodate a course of action that's basically the Supreme Court refusing to do what it is supposed to do.