When White House press secretary Robert Gibbs excoriated government critics (“the professional left”) for being ungrateful SOB’s considering all that this administration has done for them, he wasn’t acting as a lone wolf. It’s a refrain that has oft been uttered by this White House, from Rahm Emanuel’s “f*#@ing r&#tards” to “top Obama advisors” who vent to Politico about an “elite group of commentators on the left.”

Roger Simon defends Gibbs this morning, and I have no doubt he’s right when he says he believes “the president agrees with Gibbs and was neither angered nor disappointed by Gibbs’s statements, which came not in the heat of his daily briefing but in the cool of his West Wing office.“

But with the public’s approval ratings of Congress at near-historic lows and not budging, it’s hard to see how this could be the fault of a couple of bloggers nobody has heard of. More likely, it’s the result of constituencies who aren’t happy with symbolic gestures while the government’s priority is to battle for the dollars of big corporate donors.

According to Gallup, Obama’s approval ratings among Hispanics has dropped 20 points this year. They note that “the two major drops in Hispanics’ approval of Obama this year — in February and May — coincide with two periods when the president was under fire for not doing enough to promote comprehensive immigration reform in Congress.”

As I wrote in April of this year:

Immigration just might be the issue that breaks through the White House “veal pen” strategy and forces them to deal with an issue — or risk the defection of an important part of the Democratic base in the 2010 elections.

When the White House punted on immigration reform lat year after the Sotomayor confirmation, I started asking members of Congress if they thought immigration would actually come up for a vote this year. They all laughed, as if anyone would expect them to do something so controversial in a midterm election year.

But even before the Arizona law was passed, the standard White House strategy for quelling liberal discontent was already at risk of failure. Captivating community validators, engaging in symbolic gestures and then blaming the GOP for their inability to carry them out has worked well on issues like health care, choice and LGBT rights, but there were signs that those who care about immigration reform were not going to be so easily pacified.

Nobody believed that Luis Gutierrez was actually going to tell Hispanic voters to stay away from the polls in 2010, but the fact that he was already threatening to go nuclear was a sign of the pressure he was already feeling from his constituents.

The Democrats are now on an all-out crusade to blame the Republicans for blocking comprehensive immigration reform. But the truth is, they couldn’t get their own caucus to support it. As Jonathan Martin wrote, “[F]or Democrats to pass immigration reform before November, party leaders would have to force members from conservative-leaning districts to cast yet another tough vote that could raise the ire of swing voters.” There was no way that was going to happen. [cont'd.]

[Story updated after the jump]

A week ago yesterday, Judge Vaughn Walker issued his landmark decision in the Perry v. Scwarzenegger Proposition 8 marriage equality case. Concurrent with his decision, Walker ordered a temporary stay of the judgment pending his consideration and determination of Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion For Stay Pending Appeal, and there has been much anticipation of that ruling ever since.

It is here.

The stay requested by DIs has been DENIED by the court, but will be kept in force until August 18 in order to give DIs a chance to apply for a stay from the 9th. The key language from the ruling:

None of the factors the court weighs in considering a motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents’ motion for a stay is DENIED. Doc #705. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8. It is so ordered.

I thought from the outset of the stay application that Judge Walker would deny it at the District level in order to force the 9th to get moving on the appeal quickly:

Furthermore, Walker not granting a stay for DIs, by definition, accelerates the appellate process by making the 9th Circuit assign a panel and consider the the certain stay request by DIs there once Walker denies it at the District level. Walker knows this will accelerate the consideration by the 9th and keep it moving along.

Not to mention that the tenor, tone, assertiveness, vibrancy and passion of Judge Walker’s main judgment on the merits is, as the real defendants in interest, the State of California and Governor have argued, simply not consistent with there being a legitimate basis for stay. And so it has been decided exactly as predicted.

And with that, the case now moves on to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. As the DIs have already noticed their appeal, the case is already docketed at the 9th and a presumptive briefing schedule set. Appellant/DIs’ opening brief is due November 12, 2010 and Appellee/Plaintiffs’ answering brief is due December 13, 2010. Appellee/DIs have the option to file a reply brief if they wish (and they would) by December 27, 2010.

So now the question is which three judges will be assigned to the panel that will consider and rule on the appeal, because the makeup of the appellate panel is absolutely critical to the process and potential outcome. There has not yet been a formal panel assigned to the appeal, but just as with the court protocol I used to predict Walker’s decision ahead of time, there is a tradition and protocol generally followed in the 9th Circuit that may give us an idea of the panel that will be deciding this seminal case.

In the 9th Circuit, when a case goes up on appeal, and it has been there before to a given panel on any issue, that panel has the option of taking the full appeal when it is filed. Well, the Perry case has indeed already been up to the 9th previously on an interlocutory appeal of a discovery issue during the trial process, and that appeal was decided by a panel consisting of Judges Wardlaw, Fisher and Berzon. I think there is a very decent chance the standard 9th protocol is followed here and the full appeal is assigned to the previous panel of Wardlaw, Fisher and Berzon, which makes sense in terms of judicial economy since they are already up to speed on the parties and the case facts and posture.

So who are these judges, and what is the book on them? [cont'd.]

According to various unsourced reports, Judge Vaughn Walker has just denied the motion by the Defendant-Intervenors to stay his ruling in the Prop 8 trial which overturned the ballot initiative. This means that same-sex couples can marry again in California, regardless of the appeals process through the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court. Only by overturning Judge Walker’s ruling would the marriages have to end.

This is breaking news, more in a minute…

Officials in San Francisco and Los Angeles are standing by, ready to start gay marriages immediately upon receipt of Judge Walker’s ruling.

We’re still waiting on official confirmation…

UPDATE: While we wait for confirmation of this rumor, check out Glenn Beck’s views on gay marriage:

O’REILLY: Do you believe — do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?

BECK: A threat to the country?

O’REILLY: Yeah, is it going to harm the country?

BECK: No, I don’t. Will the gays come and get us?

O’REILLY: OK. Is it going to harm the country in any way?

BECK: I believe — I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?

O’REILLY: OK, so you don’t. That’s interesting. Because I don’t think a lot of people understand that about you.

UPDATE II: Freedom to Marry is now confirming this.

UPDATE III: Many are confirming now, and a celebration has broken out in San Francisco. But I’m not seeing an actual order at the District Court website. At least not yet.

UPDATE IV: Here’s the actual ruling from the court:

ORDER by Judge Walker denying [705] Motion to Stay. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8. (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2010)

So, the stay has been denied. But that judgment has been stayed, basically, for another week. At that point, Prop 8 is toast. But this gives the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the ability to stay Judge Walker’s ruling within the next week. So that’s the next phase.