Saturday, August 10, 2013

Chief Justice Rejects Cuccinelli Request to Stay 4th Circuit Sodomy Ruling

It appears that Ken Cuccinelli - a/k/a "Crazy Cuccinelli" or "Kookinelli" - may be headed towards another defeat at the U.S. Supreme Court (he's lost every case he's brought so far).  This time, Kookinelli's delusional quest and waste of Virginia tax dollars involves his bizarre effort to save Virginia's unconstitutional "crimes against nature" or "sodomy statute."  After a loss at the U.S. District Court and a double loss at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Cuccinelli appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Court and asked that the 4th Circuit ruling be stayed (i.e., suspended from effectiveness pending final action by the Supreme Court).  Yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts added to Cuccinelli's losing average by saying "No" to the requested stay.  Here are details from the Washington Post on the latest bitch lap delivered to Cuccinelli:

Virginia’s attorney general has lost his bid to delay a lower court ruling that struck down the state’s anti-sodomy law while the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to hear his appeal.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday denied the request for a stay from Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

In March, a divided three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond declared Virginia’s law against oral and anal sex unconstitutional.

Cuccinelli appealed the ruling in June, and later asked the justices to issue the stay.
His request was opposed by attorneys for a man who was convicted under Virginia’s so-called crimes against nature law.

In his appeal, Cuccinelli argues that the Texas ruling did not apply to sex acts between adults and minors. MacDonald’s lawyers dispute that analysis.

The federal appeals court said that while the Supreme Court did not expressly carve out an exception for minors, it left open the possibility of state legislatures doing so.

As noted in previous posts, it was Cuccinelli himself who led the charge to block changes to Virginia's statute that might have addressed the supposed problem that Cuccinelli now complains of.   Denial of the stay is a possible sign that the Supreme Court will refuse to hear the appeal when it takes formal action.

No comments: