Prop 8 case sent to Calif. Supreme Court

LGBT advocates frustrated over delay

Lisa Keen  |  Keen News Service

A 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel surprised many Proposition 8 observers Tuesday, Jan. 4 when it suddenly issued five documents relating to the case.

But there was no decision Tuesday in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the landmark case testing whether voters in California violated the U.S. Constitution when they amended the state constitution to ban marriage licenses for same-sex couples.

The bottom line of the documents was that the three-judge panel that heard arguments in an appeal of the case punted a critical question regarding legal standing to the California Supreme Court.

The appellate panel said it would not rule on the constitutionality of Proposition 8 until it gets a ruling from the California Supreme Court as to whether Yes on 8 proponents of the initiative have an “authoritative” entitlement to represent the voters who passed the initiative in the appeal in federal court.

The announcement frustrated and disappointed many.

“It is frustrating that this will slow the case down, especially since there is nothing in California law that gives initiative proponents the power to force an appeal when the official representatives of the state have determined that doing so is not in the best interests of the state,” said Shannon Minter of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The development struck some as odd. It appears the federal court is asking a state court whether Yes on 8 has standing to appeal a lower federal court ruling that struck down Proposition 8.

“I don’t think it was necessary to ask the California Supreme Court to rule on that issue,” said Minter, “and I am disappointed the Ninth Circuit did so.” But Ted Olson, a lead attorney on the team challenging Proposition 8, said it’s not uncommon.

And it was not really a surprise to learn the panel is struggling with the question of standing. During oral argument on Dec. 6, all three judges seemed troubled by the idea that a state governor or attorney general could, in essence, acquire an ability to veto a measure passed by voters by simply refusing to defend a challenge to its constitutionality in court. The California constitution does not provide the governor or attorney general a right to veto voter-passed initiatives.

Both Judge Stephen Reinhardt, widely perceived to be the most liberal of the panel, and Judge Randy Smith, the most conservative, seemed concerned that the governor and attorney general’s refusal to appeal the district court decision “does not seem to be consistent” with the state’s initiative system. Judge Michael Hawkins expressed frustration during arguments that the panel might be prevented from rendering a decision about the constitutionality of Proposition 8 “so it’s clear, in California, who has the right to marry and who doesn’t.” The panel seemed prepared, on Dec. 6, to ask the California Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue — and it’s somewhat curious that they waited one month before actually doing so.

In its 21-page order to the California Supreme Court, the three-judge panel asked the state court to determine whether Yes on 8 proponents have “rights under California law … to defend the constitutionality of [Proposition 8] … when the state officers charged with the laws’ enforcement … refuse to provide such a defense.”

Olson, in a telephone conference call with reporters soon after the court released its order, said that, if the California Supreme Court determines that there is no authority under state law for Yes on 8 to have standing to represent voters in the appeal, the 9th Circuit would be bound to accept that determination. However, the ruling on standing could still be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, he said.

If the California Supreme Court determines Yes on 8 does not have standing and the 9th Circuit rules accordingly, then the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker on Aug. 4 will become the law throughout California, making it possible for same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.

Judge Walker ruled that Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitutional guarantees to equal protection and due process. Although neither the attorney general nor the governor provided any defense for the initiative during the trial last January, Walker did allow Yes on 8 proponents to intervene in the trial as defenders of the measure. But the appeals panel indicated that standing in the district court does not necessarily mean Yes on 8 has standing to appeal.

If Yes on 8 does appeal a loss on the issue of standing to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the high court rules in its favor, it would then most likely send the case back to the 9th Circuit for a ruling on constitutionality.

Meanwhile, among its other documents Tuesday, the 9th Circuit panel issued a 16-page opinion that Imperial County, Calif., does not have standing to appeal the district court decision itself. The panel said it was denying the county’s claim for standing on different grounds than did Judge Walker. The panel held that, because the county simply administers the state’s marriage law, it does not have any “interest on its own” to defend. The county has 14 days in which to appeal the panel’s ruling on standing.

The panel’s formal question to the California Supreme Court is: “Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so.

“If California does grant the official proponents of an initiative the authority to represent the State’s interest in defending a voter-approved initiative when public officials have declined to do so or to appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative,” states the order, “then Proponents would also have standing to appeal on behalf of the State.

“This court is obligated to ensure that it has jurisdiction over this appeal before proceeding to the important constitutional questions it presents,” says the order, “and we must dismiss the appeal if we lack jurisdiction. The certified question therefore is dispositive of our very ability to hear this case.

“It is not sufficiently clear to us, however, whether California law does so,” said the panel. “In the absence of controlling authority from the highest court of California on these important questions of an initiative proponent’s rights and interests in the particular circumstances before us, we believe we are compelled to seek such an authoritative statement of California law.”

Today’s development will, of course, delay the 9th Circuit panel’s decision on the merits of the case — whether voters can withhold marriage licenses from gay couples while granting them to straight couples.

“Further delay in restoring the freedom to marry in California is a lamentable hardship on couples,” said Evan Wolfson, head of the national Freedom to Marry group. “But I am confident that we will regain the freedom to marry in California soon.”

NCLR’s Minter agreed.

“I am confident the California Supreme Court will hold that California law does not give initiative proponents any special power to override the decisions of the state’s elected representatives,” said Minter. “In the meantime, however, Proposition 8 remains on the books, and every day that goes by, LGBT people in California are denied the freedom to protect their families and express their love and commitment through marriage. This will delay,” he said, “but not deny, the day that Proposition 8 is gone for good.”

The full text of the order is below.

© 2011 Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

CA9Doc 292

—  John Wright

Oral arguments ‘promising’ in Prop 8 case

Judges grill attorneys from both sides on issue of standing, merits of federal case challenging California’s same-sex marriage ban

Lisa Keen |  Keen News Service

SAN FRANCISCO — Famed attorney Ted Olson told a 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Monday, Dec. 6 that the reason proponents of Proposition 8 have put forth to justify their ban on same-sex marriage is “nonsense.”

That reason, said Olson, reading from a page in the brief filed by attorneys for the Yes on 8 coalition, was that same-sex marriage “will make children prematurely preoccupied with issues of sexuality.”

“If believed,” said Olson, “that would justify the banning of comic books, television, video games, and even conversations between children.”

And it isn’t exactly the reason Yes on 8 proffered during their successful 2008 campaign to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Back then, the primary reason, noted Olson, was “protecting children” from the notion that marriage between same-sex couples was OK.

So, what should the court consider as the reason behind denying same-sex couples the right to marry, asked Judge Michael Hawkins.

“Should we look just at the record in the district court?” he asked, or should we “imagine whether there is any conceivable rational basis” to ban gays from marriage?

Olson urged the court not to use its own imagination but to look at the reasons proffered by the Yes on 8 proponents and determine whether they “make sense” and whether they are “motivated by fear” or a dislike of gay people.

“Protecting our children,” said Olson, “is not a rational basis. It’s based on the idea there’s something wrong with” gay people.

Both Olson and his legal counterpart, Charles Cooper, argued with greater passion and animation during Monday’s argument before the federal appeals court than they had in January and June before U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker. It was Walker’s ruling in August — that California’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution — that brought them to the appeals court in San Francisco on Monday. Unlike at the district court trial, where the U.S. Supreme Court barred any television or web broadcast, the appeals proceedings were carried live on national television by CSPAN and several California stations. Demonstrators crowded outside the federal building in San Francisco under the watchful eye of federal protection service officers. And interested observers and journalists packed the courtroom and watched broadcasts all over the country.

The three judges on the appeallate panel vigorously challenged each side’s arguments on both matters before the court — Yes on 8 and Imperial County’s legal qualification (standing) to appeal, and the validity of Walker’s declaration that Proposition 8 violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Judge N. Randy Smith, an alum of the Mormon-owned Brigham Young University, leveled hard questions at Cooper over Yes on 8’s claim to have legal standing to press the appeal. Then he pitched equally hard questions to Olson’s comrade David Boies, about the “problem” created for the court by the fact that neither the governor nor attorney general appealed the district court decision themselves. Even though neither has the power to veto an initiative, said Smith, they both nullified the initiative by not appealing it.

Boies tried to make the point that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown made their decisions not to appeal after Judge Walker declared the initiative to be unconstitutional.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, widely perceived to be a staunch liberal, seemed to agree with Smith, saying the governor and attorney general’s refusal to appeal the district court decision “does not seem to be consistent” with the state’s initiative system. And should the court find that Yes on 8 and Imperial County both lack the legal qualifications to appeal, the judges said, the appeals court has no cause to rule on the merits of the dispute.

Boies argued that the concern about what the governor and attorney general did was a “different issue” than standing. And on the issue of standing, said Boies, Yes on 8 and Imperial County have no standing to bring the appeal, simply because they can’t meet the standard of demonstrating a real injury from the district court’s decision.

It was not an easy sell. Hawkins expressed frustration that the court might not be able to render a decision on the merits “so it’s clear, in California, who has the right to marry and who doesn’t.”

Yes on 8 attorney Charles Cooper had argued that, because the California Supreme Court had, in an earlier, related court proceeding given Yes on 8 the right to intervene in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case to defend Proposition 8, it intended to convey standing, too. By the end of the first hour of the proceeding — which was devoted to standing — the panel seemed inclined to ask the California Supreme Court to certify whether it intended Yes on 8 to have standing.

The panel seemed equally uncomfortable with the effort by a deputy clerk of Imperial County, Isabella Vargas, to seek standing to appeal Walker’s decision. The judges, particularly Hawkins, pointedly and repeatedly asked why Imperial County’s deputy clerk was seeking the status, and no explanation was given as to why the county clerk did not.

Robert Tyler, an attorney with a religious advocacy legal firm representing Vargas and Imperial County pro bono, evaded the answer to that question both in and out of the courtroom. At a press conference following arguments, he claimed the answer was a matter of attorney-client privilege.

The three judges were equally tough in questions about the merits of Judge Walker’s decision. As Cooper attempted to read from his prepared statement, Judge Hawkins interrupted almost immediately to ask him whether voters have the right to re-institute segregation in public schools.

“No,” said Cooper.

“Why not?” asked Hawkins.

“Because it would be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution,” said Cooper.

“As interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court,” interjected Hawkins.

“Yes,” conceded Cooper.

But in 1870, the U.S. Supreme Court probably wouldn’t have interpreted the constitution to forbid segregation? asked Hawkins.

Cooper conceded that was probably true.

“Well, how is this different?” asked Hawkins.

Judge Smith challenged Cooper using the Loving v. Virginia ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that said states couldn’t prohibit interracial marriage. He did so by noting that Cooper was arguing that the Supreme Court had already ruled on the right of states to proscribe same-sex marriage in Baker v. Nelson. The high court, in 1972, dismissed the appeal of a gay couple who had sought a marriage license in Minnesota. Dismissing an appeal has more significance than simply refusing to hear an appeal. But, in dismissing the Baker appeal, the high court explained it was doing so because there was no “substantial federal question” presented by the case. There is dispute within legal circles as to whether that dismissal means anything today. But Cooper, and others, have tried to make a case that the Baker action is precedent, and that it governs attempts by other states to ban same-sex marriages.

If Baker was precedent, said Smith, then why couldn’t states ban interracial marriage, too?

Cooper had to concede the right of states to decide who can marry is “not an absolute right” and that their right to do so “is limited by the restrictions of the U.S. Constitution.”

When Cooper tried to argue that society has a rational interest in the creation of children and in promoting responsible procreation to ensure that children are adequately cared for, Judge Reinhardt suggested that might be a “good argument for prohibiting divorce.”

Judge Smith jumped in to challenge Cooper on this point, too. He noted that California domestic partnership laws provide same-sex couples with all the same benefits and rights to marriage, including those involving child-rearing. What is the rational reason for denying same-sex couples the designation of the word marriage, he wondered.

Judge Hawkins challenged Cooper to explain how California’s same-sex marriage ban is different from Colorado’s Amendment 2, which said no law could prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court struck down Amendment 2 in Romer v. Evans, saying the only reason for the law was animus against gay people and that laws may not be justified by mere animus.

Cooper argued that Amendment 2 had been a “sweeping” denial of protections to gay people, in banking, employment, housing, commercial transactions, and many other areas of life. Proposition 8, he said, is focused just on marriage. And, in marriage, said Cooper, society had an interest to protect unrelated to animus against gay people, and that interest is promoting responsible procreation.

Therese Stewart, the openly gay chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, tackled that argument head-on, by noting that same-sex couples “do procreate — not in same way [as heterosexual couples], but they do procreate.”

Gay legal activists seemed pleased with how the arguments went Monday.

Evan Wolfson, head of the national Freedom to Marriage Project, said that, overall, he thinks “it looks promising, both on standing and on the merits.”

Shannon Minter, senior counsel for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, agreed, saying he was especially encouraged that “at least two of the judges seemed highly critical of Charles Cooper’s claim on behalf of the proponents that Prop 8 could be justified based on arguments relating to procreation.” And Ted Olson, he said, “was particularly eloquent and urged the Court to reach the broad question of whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry.”

Jenny Pizer, head of Lambda Legal Defense’s Marriage Project, said she wouldn’t be surprised if the panel’s eventual ruling includes “multiple decisions” on how they reached the same outcome “with different reasonings.”

“And if they conclude Prop 8 is invalid while disagreeing about the details of why,” said Pizer, “that may be just fine.”

The panel is expected to render its decision on both the standing issue and the constitutionality of Proposition 8 within a few months. Boies speculated during a post-argument press conference that the earliest the panel would likely render a decision is early next year and the earliest the case might be heard by the Supreme Court — during its almost inevitable appeal — would be 2012.

© 2010 by Keen News Service. All rights reserved.

—  John Wright

Prop 8 oral arguments are today, but if you’re not a lawyer it ‘might be like watching paint dry’

Ken Upton
Ken Upton

With DADT repeal all but dead, we turn our attention to California, where oral arguments are set today in the federal challenge to Proposition 8.

We’ve got a full preview and viewer’s guide over on the main page, and the two-hour proceedings will be broadcast live on the CSPAN website beginning at noon Dallas time.

But we also inquired of Ken Upton, a senior staff attorney at Lambda Legal in Dallas, as to what he’ll be looking for this afternoon. Here’s what Upton said:

I’ll be particularly interested in the panel’s questions surrounding standing (the constitutional principle that says only people actually affected or injured by the dispute have a right to litigate it, not people who merely have an opinion about it in a general sense). Courts can be willing to turn to this doctrine when appropriate to dispose of cases they aren’t ready to decide on the merits.

As for the second session, I’m interested in how the panel reacts to the evidence at trial and what weight they choose to give it. The marriage cases that were lost (e.g., NY, WA, IN, AZ) all resulted from a court willing to allow the government to speculate about the justifications for excluding same-sex couples from marriage. The victories happened when courts required the government to give real justifications that are grounded in fact, not theories made up after the fact based on rank speculation or outdated stereotypes. That will be the key here. How will the panel treat the evidence (which was overwhelmingly supportive of striking down Prop 8)?

It will be fun to watch (for lawyers, at least — might be like watching paint dry for many non-lawyers).

—  John Wright

BREAKING: Court allows military to continue enforcing ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ pending appeal

The U.S. military can continue enforcing “don’t ask don’t tell” pending the government’s appeal of a district judge’s decision declaring the policy unconstitutional.

With one justice dissenting, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Monday issued a stay of the district judge’s injunction barring the military from enforcing the policy.

The appeals court had already granted a temporary stay of the injunction, but Monday’s decision extends the stay for the duration of the appeal, which will take at least several months.

Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly reports:

“In addition to the fact that this case raises ‘serious legal questions,’” the court wrote, “there are three reasons that persuade us to grant a stay pending appeal.”

The reasons included that “Acts of Congress are presumptively constitutional,” that “‘judicial deference . . . is at its apogee’ when Congress legislates under its authority to raise and support armies” and that “the district court’s analysis and conclusions are arguably at odds with the decisions of at least four other Circuit Courts of Appeal.”

Dan Woods, an attorney for the plaintiffs in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, issued the following statement:

“The court’s ruling is a disappointment not only to us, but also to all homosexual servicemembers who bravely put themselves in harm’s way so that we can all enjoy the constitutional rights and freedoms that they themselves are being denied. The decision only slows the day when military service will be available to all Americans, regardless of sexual orientation, who want nothing more than to serve their country honorably and patriotically. We will continue to fight on for the constitutional rights of these Americans and look forward to a favorable decision on the merits of the appeal. Meanwhile, we will discuss the court’s order with our client to determine whether we will ask for a review of the order by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of Log Cabin, said in a statement, “Log Cabin Republicans is disappointed that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ will continue to burden our armed forces, undermine national security and limit the freedom of our men and women in uniform. Despite this temporary setback, Log Cabin remains confident that we will ultimately prevail on behalf of servicemembers’ constitutional rights. In the meantime, we urge President Obama to use his statutory stop-loss power to halt discharges under this discriminatory and wasteful policy. The president claims to want to see ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ended. It is time that he stop talking and start working to make a real difference for gay and lesbian Americans by pushing for repeal when Congress returns.”

—  John Wright

D-NY to DOJ: Military bias merits no appeal!

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is wrong for our national security and inconsistent with the moral foundation upon which this country was founded.  For months we've worked together to repeal it.  Last month, we experienced an important victory.  A federal court judge in California declared the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy unconstitutional, saying it has had a "direct and deleterious effect" on our military.  I couldn't agree more.  That's why I teamed up with Senator Mark Udall of Colorado to write a letter to the Department of Justice urging Attorney General Holder not to appeal this ruling in court.  Now I need you to stand with us and call on Attorney General Holder not to appeal this ruling.  Because of the work we've done together over the past year and a half, we are closer than ever to repealing this dangerous policy.  This ruling only gets us closer and it's imperative that it stand.  Click here to help repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  Senator Udall and I are urging the Department of Justice to let the court ruling stand, and we need your support.  "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is an immoral policy that hurts our military readiness.  Since DADT began in 1993, we've lost more than 13,000 men and women to this policy.  That's 13,000 too many.  We must not lose one more brave gay or lesbian service member to this destructive policy.  It is unconstitutional and the federal court ruling should stand.  Click here to help repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  Senator Udall and I are urging the Department of Justice to let the court ruling stand, and we need your support.  Stand with us and urge Attorney General Holder not to appeal this important ruling. While Congress will still need to repeal DADT, this is an extremely important step forward in affirming the civil rights of gays and lesbians. Our government should not be challenging it.  Thanks for your ongoing support on this issue.  Sincerely,  Kirsten Gillibrand

Tell the Department of Justice: Don’t Defend “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”! [Senator Gillibrand]




Good As You

—  John Wright

BREAKING: Appeals court grants stay of Prop 8 ruling; gay marriages won’t resume Wednesday

A federal appeals court reportedly has granted a stay of Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional. This means same-sex marriages will not resume in California on Wednesday, the deadline for Walker’s previous stay to expire. From the National Center for Lesbian Rights at about 6 p.m. Dallas time on Twitter: “BREAKING: 9th Cir grants stay but puts case on expedited schedule & orders parties to address whether #Prop8 proponents have standing.”

This is a developing story. Stay tuned to Instant Tea for updates.

UPDATE: Some early analysis of the appeals court’s decision courtesy of the Courage Campaign:

Three things:

First, and drastically most importantly, the Court granted the stay. Consequently the thousands of couples who were waiting for the day of equality will have to wait at least a few more months until December.

Second, the Court wants this case to be resolved quickly. Appellants’ opening brief is due in just a month and the hearing will happen on December 6th. This is lightning quick for a Federal Court of Appeals, and it’s a very good sign. The Court understands that this case is important, and it doesn’t want it to linger.

Third, the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Here’s a discussion of the standing issue. This is very good news for us. It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing. Even better, the Court is expressing an opinion that its inclination is that the case should be dismissed. That being said, the panel that issued this Order (the motions panel) is not the same panel that will hear that case on the merits. The merits panel will be selected shortly before December 6th and we don’t know the three judges who will be on the merits panel. But this is a very good sign that the appeal could be dismissed on the ground of standing alone.

UPDATE NO. 2: Here’s a statement from the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which is representing the same-sex couples challenging Prop 8:

Today the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set a highly expedited schedule for briefing and argument of proponents’ appeal from the district court’s August 4, 2010 decision striking down California’s Proposition 8 as an unconstitutional violation of the rights of gay and lesbian citizens to due process and equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, and it granted proponents’ request to stay the judgment of the district court’s order while the appeal is decided. This means that although Californians who were denied equality by Proposition 8 cannot marry immediately, the Ninth Circuit, like the district court, will move swiftly to address and decide the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims on their merits. Today’s order can be found here:  http://www.equalrightsfoundation.org/legal-filings/9th-circuit-ruling-on-motion-for-stay-pending-appeal/

“We are very gratified that the Ninth Circuit has recognized the importance and pressing nature of this case and the need to resolve it as quickly as possible by issuing this extremely expedited briefing schedule. As Chief Judge Walker found, Proposition 8 harms gay and lesbian citizens each day it remains on the books.   We look forward to moving to the next stage of this case,” said Attorney Theodore B. Olson.

“Today’s order from the Ninth Circuit for an expedited hearing schedule ensures that we will triumph over Prop. 8 as quickly as possible. This case is about fundamental constitutional rights and we at the American Foundation for Equal Rights, our Plaintiffs and our attorneys are ready to take this case all the way through the appeals court and to the United States Supreme Court,” said Chad Griffin, Board President, American Foundation for Equal Rights.

UPDATE NO. 3: We’ve posted a full story here.

—  John Wright

NJ Supreme Court rejects gay marriage case

ANGELA DELLI SANTI  |  Associated Press Writer

TRENTON, N.J. — New Jersey’s Supreme Court won’t consider whether the state’s civil union law provides equal rights to gay couples before the case is heard in a lower court.

The court announced Monday, July 26 it cannot consider the merits of the claim by six same-sex couples that New Jersey’s civil union law is unconstitutional until there is a trial record.

Gay couples unsuccessfully sued New Jersey four years ago for the right to marry. They claim that by creating civil unions, the state has not fulfilled a court order to treat them the same as heterosexual couples seeking to marry.

The justices were split 3-3, one vote shy of the four needed for a motion to be granted.

Justice Virginia Long, who wrote the dissenting opinion, agreed there is an insufficient record for debating the merits of the claim, but she said hearing oral arguments would have helped guide the justices on how best to go about creating a judicial record.

Steven Goldstein, who leads the state’s largest gay rights group, Garden State Equality, said the decision perpetuates the unequal legal status of same-sex couples and their children.

“Same-sex couples will continue to be denied the consistent right to visit one another in the hospital, to make medical decisions for one another, and to receive equal health benefits from employers, all because of the deprivation of the equality and dignity that uniquely comes with the word marriage,” he said in a statement.

—  John Wright