Skip to main content

Wisconsin's Attorney General J. B. Van Hollen has asked the Seventh Circuit for an immediate stay of Judge Crabb's ruling striking down Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban. The stay would halt the issuance of marriage licences to same-sex couples which is still occurring in some counties in the state. Van Hollen also filed a notice of appeal of the ruling.

In addition, Judge Crabb will hold a meeting today at 1PM to discuss issuing a stay to halt same-sex marriages.

From JMG:

Several county clerks in Wisconsin have been issuing marriage licenses since the ban was struck down on Friday by U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb, but other county clerks say they are waiting for clarification from the state. Van Hollen has said county clerks were wrong to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses because Crabb's ruling signaled that she did not intend to order them to do so for at least two weeks. If the judge had wanted gay marriages to start immediately, she could have issued an order with her Friday ruling, Van Hollen said in a court filing. Crabb is expected to have a 1 p.m. conference today with the parties in the case, which might also lead to a ruling from her on whether or not she'll stay Friday's decision.
This is not unexpected, however it is disappointing that state officials refuse to accept the inevitable and allow same-sex marriages to move forward in the state. The Seventh Circuit will likely issue a stay if Judge Crabb doesn't, and then those same-sex married couples in Wisconsin will be in somewhat of a state of limbo (like those in Utah).

Wisconsin (US) Rep. Mark Pocan has issued a statement as well:

From jsonline:

So far, at least 11 county clerks among Wisconsin's 72 counties are issuing gay marriage licenses and at least 13 are not.

Rock County officials announced Sunday that the county clerk will issue marriage licenses Monday to all qualified couples, joining clerks in Milwaukee and Dane counties. Between Friday evening and Saturday afternoon, 283 same-sex couples in Wisconsin's two largest cities obtained marriage licenses — 146 in Milwaukee and 137 in Madison.

Kenosha and Waukesha Counties were also issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Monday.

Waukesha County Clerk Kathleen Novack said she saw six same-sex couples waiting for her office to open when she arrived about 7:45 a.m. Monday. By 9:30 a.m., three same-sex couples had received marriage licenses with about a dozen more interested in applying, she said.Same-sex couples lined up in other counties in Wisconsin early Monday, only to be turned away — at first. In Outagamie and Brown counties, officials refused to issue the licenses to three same-sex couples who applied for marriage licenses early Monday, but then reversed course based on the federal judge's ruling, Post-Crescent Media reported.

In Outagamie County, however, the clerk's office has said it will not waive the five-day waiting period for issuing the licenses, according to Post-Crescent Media.Racine, Ozaukee, Washington and La Crosse counties were not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Monday, with officials there saying they were waiting for further guidance from the state or courts.

In a Minnesota Public Radio interview, La Crosse County Clerk Ginny Dankmeyer said she said she turned one couple away Monday morning and her staff fielded about 20 calls on the issue in the first 30 minutes the office was open. Dankmeyer told MPR she wants to issue the licenses but wants to make sure they hold up."When we do issue them, we want them to be legal," she said.

After couples get married, they submit marriage certificates to the county register of deeds, which then files them with the vital records office of the state Department of Health Services.

That state agency has not yet received any marriage certificates from same-sex couples. When it does, officials there will seek advice from the attorney general on what to do with them, said department spokeswoman Jennifer Miller.

Judge Crabb has refused to issue the stay requested by the state.

From chippewa.com:

Update | 1:46 p.m.: Judge Barbara Crabb, in her first remarks on her Friday ruling tossing out Wisconsin's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, declined to issue a stay of the decision Monday but said she does not condone the wave of marriages that followed.

Crabb said her ruling was a declaratory judgment, not an injunction. That means that she found the amendment unconstitutional but has not immediately barred its enforcement. Instead, she has ordered both sides to prepare briefs on how an injunction should be framed.

She said the marriages conducted in Dane and Milwaukee counties over the weekend, and in other counties Monday, should not be going forward.

12:51 PM PT: Another hearing is scheduled on June 19, 2014 before Judge Crabb.

More from jsonline:

Three days after her historic ruling striking down the state's same-sex marriage ban, U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb indicated Monday afternoon that in the coming days either she or a federal court is likely to grant a stay of her Friday ruling, which would block county officials around the state from issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples while her decision from Friday is appealed.

But Crabb said she was leaving the "status quo" in place for now because she wanted to hear more from the two sides in the case on the implications of a stay before deciding on it. She set her next hearing for June 19.

"I will consider a stay as to what's in the (final order,) but I'm not going to act today," Crabb said at the hastily called hearing.

Crabb's comments effectively mean that for now the state will remain divided into counties such as Dane, Milwaukee and Waukesha, where clerks are issuing same-sex marriage licenses, and counties such as Ozaukee, Washington and Racine, where they are not.

When asked by state attorneys Monday about that inconsistency among counties, Crabb said that was an issue for state courts to decide if needed, not her. She said that, though she had struck down the marriage ban, she had given no orders on it so far to state and local officials in Wisconsin, so she had nothing to halt.

"They did not act because I told them they could," Crabb said of county officials. "That hasn't been decided."

Originally posted to librarisingnsf on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 09:45 AM PDT.

Also republished by Kossacks for Marriage Equality and LGBT Kos Community.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm confused. IANAL. Was there no decision that (4+ / 0-)

    Crabb could have issued, that might have foreclosed the possibility of a stay?

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 09:50:39 AM PDT

    •  No, either trial or appeals court can issue stay (8+ / 0-)

      until the appeal is decided.  I'm not sure whether the appeals court will give any weight to the trial court's refusal.  

      Retrospectives on 25th anniversary of Tiananmen at Chinafile.com

      by Inland on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 09:53:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Van Hollen's current logic - there is no ruling (7+ / 0-)

        since Judge Crabb hasn't issued a direct order to the state to stop enforcing unconstitutional laws.

        Therefore, using his logic, there is nothing for the circuit to stay until after Judge Crabb issues an order to go with her ruling.

        "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

        by Eman on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:02:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Van Hollen may be an idiot. (8+ / 0-)
          Van Hollen has said county clerks were wrong to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses because Crabb's ruling signaled that she did not intend to order them to do so for at least two weeks.
          Yes, those darn clerks for following the constitution without waiting for an order threatening them with contempt of court.

          If the judge didn't specify a time, then impliedly the state has a reasonable time to come into compliance with the constitution.  That has nothing to do with a stay pending appeal.

          Retrospectives on 25th anniversary of Tiananmen at Chinafile.com

          by Inland on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:08:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and Judge Crabb, as I expected she would, just (3+ / 0-)

            announced that she cannot issue a stay for an order which does not yet exist.

            I'm glad that she (deliberately IMHO) put Van Hollen in a position where he cannot win.

            I also doubt that the appellate circuit will issue a stay of an order which does not yet exist.

            Eventually this may be stayed by the SCOTUS, but for now the window for equal marriage in Wisconsin remains open.

            Yippeee.

            "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

            by Eman on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 01:06:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Perhaps, but I fear that those marriages (0+ / 0-)

              will be ruled invalid. We'll see what happens.

              •  Utah and Cali precedents say no. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                concernedamerican

                In both cases, before the ruling was stayed, the ruling was the law of the land.  The recent Utah decision to honor the marriages during that period came quickly.

                I think the catch 22 for Van Hollen et al is that an amendment and a law cannot be both constitutional and unconstitutional at the same time.  I'm no lawyer, but I can't see how they can have it both ways.  

                Which trumps the other, a state law ruled unconstitional, or a federal ruling without a written order?  I don't know.

                "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

                by Eman on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 02:06:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Injunctions were issued prior (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Eman, Dave in Northridge

                  to same-sex marriages taking place in both those states. In Wisconsin, the state has not been enjoined to cease enforcing the state's same-sex marriage ban. It's going to be a complicated mess, I think.

                  •  Yes, a complicated mess, but... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    librarisingnsf

                    Judge Crabb didn't specifically order the state to obey the constitution and she also didn't order them not to pending further developments.

                    So, according to The Washington Post,

                    Gay couples get licenses in 42 Wisconsin counties

                    At least 42 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties were issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Monday, according to a canvass by The Associated Press. Clerks in a handful of counties did not answer phone calls. Many, but not all, also waived the state’s five-day waiting period.

                    it looks as if the majority of Wisconsin counties are following Judge Crabb's ruling in spite of the views of Van Hollen.

                    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

                    by Eman on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 04:07:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Judge Crabb clarified herself later today... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    librarisingnsf, exterris

                    from her follow-up order, page 3 (bolding mine):

                    With respect to the merits of the motion, defendants have not shown that they are entitled to relief at this time. The authority defendants cite in their briefs relate to stays of injunctions, Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c); Herbert v. Kitchen, 134 S. Ct. 893 (Jan. 6, 2014); Latta v. Otter, No. 14-35420, at 5 (9th Cir. May 20, 2014); Tanco v. Haslam, No. 14-5297, at 1-2 (6th Cir. Apr. 25, 2014); DeBoer v. Snyder, No. 14-1341 (6th Cir. Mar. 25, 2014), but, as defendants know, I have not issued an injunction in this case. Rather, I deferred a ruling on that issue until plaintiffs could propose more specific language about the injunction they were requesting. Although I included a declaration in the order, defendants were unable to cite any authority for the proposition that a court may “stay” a declaration.
                    This is the position I had expected she was taking.

                    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

                    by Eman on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 06:19:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  UPDATE Breaking!! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      librarisingnsf, fcvaguy

      Don't confuse Confidence with Arrogance.

      by bearsguy on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 12:09:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  These assholes must wake up every morning, (12+ / 0-)

    look in the mirror and say, "How can I make the world shittier today?"

    GOP 2014 strategy -- Hire clowns, elephants, and a ringmaster and say "a media circus" has emerged and blame Democrats for lack of progress. Have pundits agree that "both sides are to blame" and hope the public will stay home on election day.

    by ontheleftcoast on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 09:54:53 AM PDT

  •  Judge Crabb also didn't issue a stay, so (10+ / 0-)

    perhaps she thought ruling a law (and also all the laws that limited rights to "husband" and "wife") unconstitutional was just that, ruling them unconstitutional.

    All those laws are now null and void unless the circuit court issues a stay.

    How hard is that for Van Hollen and his minions to understand?

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

    by Eman on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 09:58:24 AM PDT

    •  Apparently, quite hard. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, sfbob, Eman

      They certainly did not wast any time with this appeal and the requests for a stay.

    •  Van Hollen HAS to do something to Justify (6+ / 0-)

      the Pay raise He received from Walker with Money from the Mortgage Settlement Money!!

      Don't confuse Confidence with Arrogance.

      by bearsguy on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:04:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How hard? It's directly related to how much (5+ / 0-)

      their jobs depend on not understanding it.  If they agreed to accept the ruling, they'd lose their livelihood, so they're instead insistent that the judge will be proven wrong and they're right.  And even when they're ultimately proven wrong, their solicitations for funds will still say they fought the fight as hard as they could.

    •  And the finding that the ban and all related (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      librarisingnsf, 1toughlady, sfbob, jayden

      laws which discriminate on the basis of gender are unconstitutional was in the section of the ruling entitled "ORDER".    It's quite clear what the judge intended.   Her request for comments regarding a proposed injunction pretty clearly pertained to all the ancillary laws impacted by a removal of the ban.

      •  I was all wrong about what the judge intended: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        librarisingnsf, Eman
        http://host.madison.com/...

        Judge Barbara Crabb on Monday declined the state's request for a stay of her ruling tossing out Wisconsin's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage pending an appeal. But in her first public remarks since her Friday ruling, Crabb said she did not explicitly tell county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

        Crabb said her ruling was a declaratory judgment, not an injunction. That means that she found the amendment unconstitutional but has not immediately barred its enforcement. Instead, she has ordered opponents of the ban to prepare briefs on how an injunction should be framed.

        She said the marriages conducted in Dane and Milwaukee counties over the weekend, and in other counties Monday, should not be going forward.

        "I never said anything" about whether county clerks should go forward with granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Crabb said. "That hasn't been decided."

        •  Curiouser and curiouser... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          librarisingnsf, skrekk

          I think today's comments and lack of stay weigh in favor of your first impression.

          Yes, Judge Crabb didn't say they could.  But she also didn't say they couldn't.

          The ORDER section of her ruling clearly makes the amendment and not just the one law, but any laws referencing "husband" and "wife" nul and void.

          I believe Judge Crabb knows exactly what she is doing.  By not issuing a separate order, there is no order for her to stay.  Nor is there an order for the appellate circuit to stay.

          If the circuit issues a stay without a written order, they are not staying an order, but staying a judge's judgment - something they shouldn't be doing without a hearing.

          The amendment and the law cannot be both constitutional and unconstitutional at the same time.  So which takes precedence, a state law ruled unconstitutional or a federal ruling without a written order?  I don't know the answer, but it is an interesting situation.

          "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

          by Eman on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 02:15:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree. She's being coy about it. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            librarisingnsf, Eman

            She also made this very telling comment:

            "I understand defendants' concern that some county clerks have been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since I issued the June 6 decision," Crabb wrote in an order after the hearing, "but that is not a result of an injunction by this court. Thus, if defendants believe that a particular county clerk is issuing a marriage license in violation of state law, that is an issue outside the scope of this case."
            •  Exactly. So if Van Hollen orders county clerks (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              librarisingnsf, skrekk

              to enforce the laws just ruled unconstitutional, is he then in violation of a federal ruling?

              As the opinion is written, those laws and the amendment are now nul and void.

              What about the good-ole "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" concept?  Just because Van Hollen has not been given a direct order from the judge does not negate the judge's ruling.

              So, as you have highlighted, Judge Crabb seems to have thrown it squarely into Van Hollen's lap.  He can order his clerks one way or the other or do nothing.  I actually find it quite humorous.

              "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

              by Eman on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 07:49:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't know if the AG can order the clerks to do (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                librarisingnsf, exterris

                much of anything given that they have independent constitutional authority as elected officials.   He can sue them in state court, he can advise them not to issue licenses, but that's probably about it.

                Also, after reading the denial of stay it's becoming clearer why Crabb didn't issue an injunction given that Walker and Van Hollen are some of the named defendants:

                It is clear enough what plaintiffs want the county clerks to do, which is issue marriage licenses.

                From previous briefs, it is also relatively clear what plaintiffs want defendant Anderson (the state registrar) to do, which is to amend the state marriage forms in accordance with his authority under Wis. Stat. § 65.20(1) so that the forms are inclusive of same-sex couples.

                However, it is still unclear what specific acts plaintiffs want defendants Walker and Van Hollen to perform or refrain from performing. It is not enough to say that defendants should be enjoined from enforcing unconstitutional laws without identifying the particular acts involved in that enforcement.

                That's been a running theme in many of these marriage equality cases - who does a plaintiff sue?
                •  Van Hollen already making threats... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  librarisingnsf, skrekk, ebohlman

                  From ABC2 in Greenbay tonight (bolding mine):

                  UPDATE-6: Federal judge won't halt Wisconsin gay weddings

                  But the state attorney general is warning clerks to move forward with caution -- with the threat of "repercussions" -- even as the judge who set this all in motion refused to stop them...

                  In a statement following Monday's hearing, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said, "Wisconsin's marriage law is in full force and effect, and all state and local officials are under a continuing duty to follow Wisconsin's marriage law unless and until the court enjoins that law."

                  He told our sister station WKOW there may be legal repercussions and counties that issue licenses may be liable for the "actions they take contrary to law."

                  "We think the law is quite clear. However there are county clerks who are acting contrary to that thought or opinion of ours," Van Hollen told a reporter.

                  So Van Hollen isn't telling county clerks what to do... just threatening them with "repercussions" for views contrary to his "thought or opinion" on the law.  What a joke.

                  Either those laws have been ruled unconstitutional or they haven't.

                  If Van Hollen truly believes his "quite clear" law is still in effect and the controlling law, then what is he demanding an emergency stay against to the appellate court?

                  So instead of directing his county clerks he is threatening them.

                  He can't have it both ways.

                  "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

                  by Eman on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:12:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  LOL....right now only 13 counties are following (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    librarisingnsf, Eman

                    his advice, and I suspect that number will drop further tomorrow.   If Van Hollen had an ounce of sense in his head he'd be both humiliated and ashamed.

                    While there's theoretically a $10K fine for a clerk who issues a license contrary to the law, that law has been unconstitutional for several days now.   Any clerk who follows the advice of the county attorney or follows the declaratory judgement of the federal court has nothing to worry about.

  •  As a side note, There is an (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarisingnsf, commonmass, JVolvo, antooo

    article at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that has a tally of which Counties are issuing Licenses, And which haven't as of yet. I have issues with putting up links from the MJS, Sorry, It's there!!

    Don't confuse Confidence with Arrogance.

    by bearsguy on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:01:42 AM PDT

  •  Actually, I'm shocked how stays ARE NOT issued (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarisingnsf, commonmass, Darmok, sfbob

    for the cases striking down these straight only marriage laws.  I would have thought that stays would be routinely handed out, since none of the appellate courts have weighed in and the states can't unring the marriage bells.  Its amazing how fast this stuff is happening.

    These judges must feel more than strongly about their decisions.  And at least one appellate court has refused stays as well.

    Retrospectives on 25th anniversary of Tiananmen at Chinafile.com

    by Inland on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:02:23 AM PDT

  •  Can't the Walker administration (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarisingnsf, Darmok, sfbob, jayden

    realize that this is all over now and get back to the business of arresting choirs and screwing over ALL of the taxpayers of Wisconsin, not just Teh Gayz?

    SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

    by commonmass on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:14:23 AM PDT

  •  Judge Crabb's 1 p.m. hearing seems odd (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarisingnsf, Inland, jayden

    Her order was pretty specific that she would discuss a stay when the parties had filed their papers on the terms of an injunction.  And the injunction applies only to the plaintiffs' request on what the court should order the state to stop doing (i.e., stop refusing to give out marriage licenses to same-sex couples).  In the meantime, there was nothing in the order that prevented the state/counties from issuing marriage licenses and by last count, we're up to 11 counties that have done so (although some have just given out applications and have refused to waive the waiting period).  Given that her ruling was 88 pages, it was clearly well thought out, and one would assume the order at the end was equally well considered.

    So, is she waffling on maybe issuing an immediate stay, or simply going to explain the consequences of her order to the parties?

    I guess we'll all find out soon enough.

    •  Maybe she will use the hearing (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darmok, librarisingnsf, jayden

      as an opportunity to ask the defendants which parts of her ruling they failed to comprehend.

      •  That would be a fun hearing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        librarisingnsf, sfbob

        The court's docket just shows that this is "reset deadlines" related to the emergency motion for a stay, and counsel can appear by phone.  

        The emergency motion references stays issued in the other cases, which I admit I haven't followed too closely in terms of how the stays came about.  But, I'd think Judge Crabb would have been fully aware of them when she issued her order.  

    •  Judge Crabb just said that she didn't intend to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      librarisingnsf

      authorize the clerks to issue licenses:

      http://host.madison.com/...

      Judge Barbara Crabb on Monday declined the state's request for a stay of her ruling tossing out Wisconsin's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage pending an appeal. But in her first public remarks since her Friday ruling, Crabb said she did not explicitly tell county clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

      Crabb said her ruling was a declaratory judgment, not an injunction. That means that she found the amendment unconstitutional but has not immediately barred its enforcement. Instead, she has ordered opponents of the ban to prepare briefs on how an injunction should be framed.

      She said the marriages conducted in Dane and Milwaukee counties over the weekend, and in other counties Monday, should not be going forward.

      "I never said anything" about whether county clerks should go forward with granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Crabb said. "That hasn't been decided."

      •  And more significantly, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        librarisingnsf

        she declined to stay her order.

        •  Aren't those last statements conflicting? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          librarisingnsf

          If she truly believed that the marriages should not be going forward, why wouldn't she issue an immediate stay?  Judges like maintaining the status quo.

          But, when she says that she "never said anything" about whether the marriages should go forward, that could mean something completely different, i.e., it's up to the state/counties whether they want to comply with her finding of unconstitutionality.  She just hasn't issued an order compelling the state to comply.

          •  Yes and no (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            librarisingnsf

            The statement in the third paragraph isn't in quotation marks, so it's presumably the reporter's paraphrase of what the reporter understood the judge to be saying. For all we know, it may simply be the reporter's interpretation of the actual quote contained in the next paragraph. I agree with you that the last paragraph says neither that the clerk's should be issuing licenses, nor that they shouldn't be issuing them.

            Bin Laden is dead. GM and Chrysler are alive.

            by leevank on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 02:06:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There is a little more clarification (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              librarisingnsf

              Again, from the Journal Sentinel:

              In Monday's hearing, Crabb said for now she was leaving the "status quo" in place until she decides what specific orders to issue to public officials. She set her next hearing for June 19.

              ...

              When asked by state attorneys Monday about that inconsistency among counties, Crabb said that was an issue for state courts to decide if needed, not her. She said that, though she had struck down the marriage ban, she had given no orders on it so far to state and local officials in Wisconsin, so she had nothing to halt.

              "They did not act because I told them they could," Crabb said of county officials. "I never said anything about whether any county clerk could go forward and issue a marriage license. That hasn't been decided."

              So, it would seem that the judge isn't adverse to the counties continuing to issue licenses and it will be up to the Seventh Circuit to put a halt to things.  At least until the June 19 hearing before Judge Crabb.
  •  It almost makes me laugh (9+ / 0-)

    These poor saps just can't hold back the tide, no matter how ardently they want to.  They are going to stomp their feet and be dragged kicking and screaming into a more tolerant and loving 21st century like a toddler getting dragged out of Target for his little temper tantrum.

    They can issue stays, but they can't stop society from changing.  They can't stop themselves from turning into social issue dinosaurs.

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:42:19 AM PDT

  •  Thanks. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarisingnsf, sfbob, jayden

    Humor Alert! No statement from this UID is intended to be true, including this one. Intended for recreational purposes only. Unauthorized interpretations may lead to unexpected results. This waiver void where prohibited. Artistic License - 420420

    by HoundDog on Mon Jun 09, 2014 at 10:50:13 AM PDT

  •  But she's indicated that she will issue a stay (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    librarisingnsf

    Or is "likely" to issue a stay.  But, she wants the parties to give her more information on the "implications" of a stay and there is another hearing set for June 19.

    Presumably, the Seventh Circuit could act in the meantime.

    •  Actually she just declined the request for a stay. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      librarisingnsf
      •  Yes, but also indicated a different outcome (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        librarisingnsf

        According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, she also said that she's "likely" going to issue a stay.  There's nothing on the court's webpage yet, so I'm just relying on the reporter's version of the hearing.

        •  From your link: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          librarisingnsf
          U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb indicated Monday afternoon that in the coming days either she or a federal court is likely to grant a stay of her Friday ruling, which would block county officials around the state from issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples while her decision from Friday is appealed.
          She's right that there's a good chance the 7th circuit will issue a stay, but why would she stay her own ruling given that she used heightened scrutiny (and thus in her view the state has no virtually chance of winning on appeal), and given that she apparently sees no harm resulting from the marriages which are taking place?
          •  I don't know, but the statements conflict (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            librarisingnsf

            If she says that she's likely to issue a stay, why wait?  Or, if she thinks that the 7th Circuit would issue a stay, again, why would she wait?

            Alternatively, if she is truly waiting for the parties to provide her with more information, why indicate that she is likely to issue a stay?

            And, if she sees no harm to marriages taking place, why would she indicate that she's likely to grant a stay?  It's all as clear as mud.  Maybe she means for it to be that way but it's not like courts to intentionally be vague.

            All of this is coming from a reporter but it's not clear whether the reporter was in the courtroom or is getting the information from the attorneys.

            Ultimately, it's probably a good thing that people are continuing to get married.  But, it's worth noting that at least one of the couples named in the suit are apparently waiting for the dust to settle.

            •  I noted this elsewhere, but the judge also said (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              librarisingnsf, exterris

              that if marriages were being performed it wasn't her problem:

              "I understand defendants' concern that some county clerks have been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since I issued the June 6 decision," Crabb wrote in an order after the hearing, "but that is not a result of an injunction by this court. Thus, if defendants believe that a particular county clerk is issuing a marriage license in violation of state law, that is an issue outside the scope of this case."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site