Who's tweeting what about Proposition 8?

Actually, the two cases were based around entirely different situations, which should be obvious.  In simplest terms, the first case occurred before Prop 8, i.e., before there was any sort of vote on the issue, while the second case was a ruling on whether the proposition itself was proper and in conformity to the state laws on propositions.  The second case was in no way a re-hash of the first case.

It's been obvious for a long time now that it would be a major upset if Prop 8 were overturned.  That's based on the legal questions asked by the justices during the trial, and on multiple legal analyses by various lawyers.  No one should have been at all surprised at this.

It's certainly a no-brainer to most anyone reading this site that gay marriage should be allowed, and I think ultimately the US Supreme Court will so rule.  But the whole problem in California is the presence of the proposition system itself.  The allure of a system that allows "the people" to decide things is apparent on the surface, but the whole point of a constitution is to PROTECT people and institutions from abandoning the core principles on which the entire society is based, things like freedom of the press and equal treatment for all groups.  How California could allow a system where the whim of the moment can override the very principles on which the society is built is beyond me.  That's what the judicial structure is for.  But California unaccountably chose to circumvent that.

So, yes, based on the law as it exists, the courts likely made the "right" legal decision, and this case was entirely different from the first case.  I'm not a lawyer, but I would think a case could be made against the entire proposition system, at least as it involves restricting of basic constitutional rights.  But that wasn't the case being brought here.