The judge said she will set a trial date at that point, which means that the matter will continue on well into the next year. Regardless of her ultimate ruling, it is expected to be appealed.
However, she did state that foes of CIRM had failed to prove that Prop. 71 was unconstitutional. Meanwhile stem cell chairman Robert Klein said the agency can make do financially until the middle of next year.
Reporter Megan Garvey of the Los Angeles Times wrote:
"'The Supreme Court has stated that it is the court's solemn duty to uphold an initiative, resolving all doubts in its favor, unless its unconstitutionality' is unmistakably clear, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Lewman Sabraw wrote in a 24-page decision on pretrial motions in the cases.
"Sabraw said the plaintiffs — People's Advocate, the National Tax Limitation Foundation and the California Family Bioethics Council — had 'not satisfied" that 'substantial test.'"
Klein released a statement today that said:
"Her explanation for denying these claims provides CIRM with a strong basis for moving forward successfully in this case. On the question of the constitutionality of Prop. 71, the plaintiffs have a high bar to clear in the hearing. They must introduce evidence that they have failed to introduce over the past year. We remain encouraged by this ruling and look forward to hearing what the court will permit on an expedited basis on December 6th."
Reporter Steve Johnson of the San Jose Mercury News quoted Dana Cody , who represents agency foes, as saying that she was not at all disappointed and is pleased with a prospect of a trial.
The story that most folks across the country were likely to see was written by Paul Elias of The Associated Press. He wrote that the decision meant Cody and her clients will have to "clear high legal hurdles to win the case."
Here is a link to the text to the judge's decision. Klein's statement follows in a separate item since it is not yet available on the CIRM web site.