Supreme Court Will Hear DOMA and Prop 8 Challenges: An Analysis

Dec 7, 2012 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.towleroad.com

The Supreme Court issued orders granting hearings in the Prop 8 case, Hollingsworth v. Perry , and one Defense of Marriage Act case , Windsor v. United States .

Comments (Page 34)

Showing posts 661 - 680 of769
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#712
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>So the lower Courts that ruled on Prop 8 used standing law, eh? Well then, I guess gay Californians can start making wedding plans for June.
reality aside as usual eh?

Did the 9th circuit agree with Walker?

NO!
They wrote the fundamental right part right outta there as in conflict with....wait for it...STANDING LAW!

"Some gay-friendly commentators have lamented that the Ninth Circuit did not announce a general right of lesbian and gay couples to marry all over the country and have criticized the court’s narrow reasoning as “dishonest,”[2] analytically “wobbly,”[3] and “disingenuous.”[4]"
"

Just when I think you cant be any dumber...
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#713
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

Is there ANY doubt in your mind her nomination would have been filibustered by the "conservatives" in the Senate had she stated unequivically that she believed their IS a constitutional right to "same-sex marriage"?
Really??
Do you think the "conservatives" aren't trying to stack the court with anti-abortion justices?
I'd say that pretty much answers your question.
I think I've been pretty clear that I think EVERY SCOTUS justice has their own biases and that those biases affect their interpretation of the constitution. Otherwise previous precedents would never be overturned without an intervening change in the constitution affecting that particular issue. It's all about the individual 9 justices on the court; it always HAS been and always WILL be.
I think you overplay your importance....
us conservatives care more about putting a limit on the ferdeal commerce power than your agenda...
as Robert's appointment indicates...

BTW, recall your history, the right thought Kagan WAS GAY at the time...

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#714
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you overplay your importance....
us conservatives care more about putting a limit on the ferdeal commerce power than your agenda...
as Robert's appointment indicates...
BTW, recall your history, the right thought Kagan WAS GAY at the time...
"us conservatives" "ferdeal commerce power"

And the right was wrong, weren't they?

Since: Mar 07

The entire US of A

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#715
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
reality aside as usual eh?
Did the 9th circuit agree with Walker?
NO!
They wrote the fundamental right part right outta there as in conflict with....wait for it...STANDING LAW!
"Some gay-friendly commentators have lamented that the Ninth Circuit did not announce a general right of lesbian and gay couples to marry all over the country and have criticized the court’s narrow reasoning as “dishonest,”[2] analytically “wobbly,”[3] and “disingenuous.”[4]"
"
Just when I think you cant be any dumber...
Walker's ruling has not been overturned by any court.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#716
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all...Indeed Griswold vs Connecticut created a right to contraception expressley by rooting a right to privacy in the marriage bed.. The right to regulate pregnancy was that of the couples privacy and that is were the right to marriage came into play. There is no "right to reproduce" outside the right to marriage articulated in Griswald.
As far as your point about "all couples dont have the ability to reproduce"
"Constitutionally protected fundamental rights need not be defined so broadly that they will inevitably be exercised by everyone. For example, although the ability to make personal decisions regarding child rearing and education has been recognized as a fundamental right (see, e.g., Pierce v. Society of the Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535), this right is irrelevant to people who do not have children. Yet, everyone who has children enjoys this fundamental right to control their upbringing. A similar analogy applies in the case of marriage. Everyone has a fundamental right to “marriage,” but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner. That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings." 1
1- In re Marriage Cases, Cal. App. 2006, McGuiness, P. J.(writing for the majority.)
Your moot quote is from an appellate court case which was overturned by the Ca. Supreme Court.

Denial of equality fails to provide any benefit for those who already enjoy their fundamental rights, while harming those denied, for no legitimate reason.

"Under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.

The exclusion of same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples.

The right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people." (In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757 [76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384]
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#717
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
"us conservatives" "ferdeal commerce power"
And the right was wrong, weren't they?
um no, Roberts found a limit to the commerce power in the obamacare decision.
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#718
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Walker's ruling has not been overturned by any court.
except the 9th circuit...
his ruling that gay marriage is fundamental? OVERRULED...

that all opposition is animus...OVERRULED!

you guys need to READ these cases man...
its not just the outcome its how they get there...

Since: May 12

Canoga Park, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#719
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>So the lower Courts that ruled on Prop 8 used standing law, eh? Well then, I guess gay Californians can start making wedding plans for June.
Same sex marriage was legal in CA before prop 8 passed. If SCOTUS rules prop 8 as unconstitutional it will once again become to legal.

So, yes. Californians can start making wedding plans for June.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#720
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
except the 9th circuit...
his ruling that gay marriage is fundamental? OVERRULED...
that all opposition is animus...OVERRULED!
you guys need to READ these cases man...
its not just the outcome its how they get there...
Not relying on all of the findings of the trial court is not the same as those findings being overruled. They are still part of the trial court record for the Supreme Court to consider.

Upholding the decision prop 8 is unconstitutional is, in this scenario, the important decision. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide which issues it deems relevant and necessary to decide the case.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#721
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you overplay your importance....
us conservatives care more about putting a limit on the ferdeal commerce power than your agenda...
as Robert's appointment indicates...
BTW, recall your history, the right thought Kagan WAS GAY at the time...
Nice dodge.

YOU claimed we are guilty of trying to "pack the court" with supporters; the obvious implication being the anti-gays AREN'T trying to pack the court with their supporters.

Yes, some may have thought Justice Kagan was gay, but they knew they couldn't oppose her on those grounds alone- though I have no doubt they wanted to. They were hoping to get her to admit publicly to supporting marriage equality and using that as a "legitimate" reason to oppose her nomination, though again they would scream bloody murder is the reverse was applied to one of their nominees.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#722
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
except the 9th circuit...
his ruling that gay marriage is fundamental? OVERRULED...
that all opposition is animus...OVERRULED!
you guys need to READ these cases man...
its not just the outcome its how they get there...
And you need to stop reading more into these cases than is really there.

Remember your recent admission you've been wrong on the SCOTUS recently?

That's why. As much as the pro-gay side misjudges the opposition, you misjudge the intent of the judges.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#723
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
reality aside as usual eh?
Did the 9th circuit agree with Walker?
NO!
They wrote the fundamental right part right outta there as in conflict with....wait for it...STANDING LAW!
"Some gay-friendly commentators have lamented that the Ninth Circuit did not announce a general right of lesbian and gay couples to marry all over the country and have criticized the court’s narrow reasoning as “dishonest,”[2] analytically “wobbly,”[3] and “disingenuous.”[4]"
"
Just when I think you cant be any dumber...
What you "think" has been shown to be of questionable value.

Like I said, gay Californians can make their wedding plans for June.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#724
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

6

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
except the 9th circuit...
his ruling that gay marriage is fundamental? OVERRULED...
that all opposition is animus...OVERRULED!
you guys need to READ these cases man...
its not just the outcome its how they get there...
That is bending the terminology a bit. By definition, constitutional rights are fundamental, and Walker ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional as a violation of the 14th (I believe) because the California Supreme Court had ruled it a fundamental right according to the CA constitution, and then Proposition 8 yanked that right away. To my knowledge, Walker never ruled there was Federal constitutional right to gay marriage... just that California had determined it to be such, and therefore taking that right away via Prop 8 violates the 14th of the US constitution.

“"W.T.F."”

Since: Aug 12

Tempe, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#725
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
except the 9th circuit...
his ruling that gay marriage is fundamental? OVERRULED...
that all opposition is animus...OVERRULED!
you guys need to READ these cases man...
its not just the outcome its how they get there...
Sorry but not only was Judge Walkers verdict NOT OVERULED but in fact it was UPHELD by the next higher appeals court! Try again oh great ignorant one!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#726
Jan 24, 2013
 
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
That is bending the terminology a bit. By definition, constitutional rights are fundamental, and Walker ruled Proposition 8 unconstitutional as a violation of the 14th (I believe) because the California Supreme Court had ruled it a fundamental right according to the CA constitution, and then Proposition 8 yanked that right away. To my knowledge, Walker never ruled there was Federal constitutional right to gay marriage... just that California had determined it to be such, and therefore taking that right away via Prop 8 violates the 14th of the US constitution.
Revisit "ex post facto"
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#727
Jan 24, 2013
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Not relying on all of the findings of the trial court is not the same as those findings being overruled. They are still part of the trial court record for the Supreme Court to consider.
no, the critical reasoning is of the 9th circuit which overruled most of walker found. the scotus do not review walker's decision...

Walker's decision is overruled and dead.

the court could obviously read anything it wants, but they are reviewing the 9th's decision which is completely opposite of walkers...
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#728
Jan 24, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

Yes, some may have thought Justice Kagan was gay, but they knew they couldn't oppose her on those grounds alone- though I have no doubt they wanted to. They were hoping to get her to admit publicly to supporting marriage equality and using that as a "legitimate" reason to oppose her nomination, though again they would scream bloody murder is the reverse was applied to one of their nominees.
fiction, now we wouldn't oppose them for being gay?
what will you say tommorrow!

But yes, they were baiting her to say anything but the current state of the law, which she stated...
and this is exactly the purpose for which I used her quote...
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#729
Jan 24, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Revisit "ex post facto"
"Over the years, when deciding ex post facto cases, the United States Supreme Court has referred repeatedly to its ruling in Calder v. Bull, in which Justice Samuel Chase held that the prohibition applied only to criminal matters, not civil matters,"

changing the voting age to 20 is not an ex post facto law...
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#730
Jan 24, 2013
 
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
no, the critical reasoning is of the 9th circuit which overruled most of walker found. the scotus do not review walker's decision...
Walker's decision is overruled and dead.
the court could obviously read anything it wants, but they are reviewing the 9th's decision which is completely opposite of walkers...
OMG! You have GOT to be kidding.
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#731
Jan 24, 2013
 
Some Day Never Comes wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry but not only was Judge Walkers verdict NOT OVERULED but in fact it was UPHELD by the next higher appeals court! Try again oh great ignorant one!
speaking of ignorance, how about you read both decisions and grasp that the outcome is sometimes less important than how it is arrived at?

for example, did you catch that the 9th circuit completely negated any claim walker made to a fundamental right to marry for gays?

get reading... and before you accuse me...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 661 - 680 of769
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••