This not only exposes the animus of the groups who had backed what many have referred to as "Prop H8." It raises serious questions about the ethics and competence of the group's attorneys.

The summary denial by Justice Kennedy, who had dissented on the standing issue in this case but wrote the majority opinion in the DOMA case, simply underscores that the proponent's motion for an emergency stay was extraordinarily frivolous.

No matter how strong a client may feel, an attorney has an ethical duty to say "no" when a client asks him or her to file a motion that the attorney knows to be devoid of merit.

This case was thoroughly briefed and argued. All nine Justices participated in the ensuing conference and weighed in on the majority and dissenting opinions. The majority considered and rejected the arguments advanced by the dissenting Justices. If the petitioners and the dissenting Justices, including Justice Kennedy, could not persuade the majority that the proponents had standing, what could the petitioners now add in a motion to reconsider that would now persuade the majority that they were wrong?

The mere existence of a procedural tool (a motion to reconsider) does not equate to substantive grounds for its use. Thus, absent a compelling showing (obviously not made given Kennedy's summary denial) the complaint that the 9th Circuit did not wait until time expired on the procedural right to file a motion to reconsider must be seen as frivolous.

As before, they have no standing. This is a dead issue.

RE Ernest's informative post (#1), in order to successfully file an extraordinarily frivolous motion you need to judge-shop for an extraordinarily frivolous justice: Antonin Scalia comes to mine.

No chance of judge shopping, Randy D. Justice Kennedy is the Supreme Court Justice who takes up 9th Circuit cases.

Moreover, Scalia was one of the Justices who agreed with the Chief Justice that the Prop 8 proponents lacked standing.

Ernie -

Haven't not seen the reasons offered for reconsideration, how can we say that it is frivolous? Yes, Kennedy dismissed it w/o comment, but he is only 1 opinion from among 9 Justices. But, in any case, he hadn't dismissed it before it was filed, so isn't every party allowed the 25 days (or whatever it is) to ask for reconsideration, whether you or Kennedy see it as "frivolous" or not?

Brad: I didn't say that the filing was frivolous. I said that it "raises serious questions" about whether it was a frivolous filing.

It is hard imagine what possible arguments on standing the proponents could raise in a motion for reconsideration that were not already thoroughly briefed. It would have to be something extraordinarily substantial to justify the motion.

The fact that Kennedy summarily denied this is significant. He was one of the four dissenters on the Prop 8 case. His summary dismissal suggests that the proponents did not present any new arguments that were materially different from those that Kennedy, himself, presented in his dissent.

That is why I wrote: "absent a compelling showing (obviously not made given Kennedy's summary denial) the complaint that the 9th Circuit did not wait until time expired on the procedural right to file a motion to reconsider must be seen as frivolous."

Finally, motions are never dismissed before they are filed. A dismissal order always follows the filing of a motion.

Again, the mere existence of a procedure (25 days to file a motion for reconsideration) of itself does not establish that there are reasonable grounds for filing the motion. If there is no reasonable basis for filing a motion for reconsideration, there was no reasonable basis for complaining about an immediate lifting of the stay.

Apparently... from all available evidence, Chrisitanity not only makes you 'hateful'.... It also makes you stupid!