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 35)

Showing posts 681 - 700 of769
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#732
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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...
The 9th did NOT "overrule" Walker. You need to get your vocabulary correct.
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#733
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
yeah, I was wrong that they would declare it a tax rather than just shoot obamacare down and leave the govt to pass a law to that effect themselves...that's not really being off base too much...

so i would suggest you need to read these cases more deeply and grasp that the big boys aren't playing semantics...

ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL

434 U.S. 374 (1978)

Decided January 18, 1978 (before Baker):

" The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings. Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

when the court says one IMPLIES the other, you are hard pressed to say they are not related at all...
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#734
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
The 9th did NOT "overrule" Walker. You need to get your vocabulary correct.
they did not follow his critical reasoning at all...
and in so doing changed the very decision being reviewed (notably by removing any claim to a fundamental right...)

how would you convey that to lay people?
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#735
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>What you "think" has been shown to be of questionable value.
Like I said, gay Californians can make their wedding plans for June.
And your posts, providing no thought at all, are clearly less valuable..
face it, you are a childish angry troll...
I mean look at your post you fraud...
What job did you have at GE?
Why wont you say, I know why...
Starts with an "F" and ends with a "raud"...
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#736
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
That is bending the terminology a bit. By definition, constitutional rights are fundamental,
false...look into that sparky...
we don't just get to make sh!t up...
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#737
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG! You have GOT to be kidding.
no, you ARE that dumb. I 'm not kidding at all...
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#738
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
yeah, I was wrong that they would declare it a tax rather than just shoot obamacare down and leave the govt to pass a law to that effect themselves...that's not really being off base too much...
so i would suggest you need to read these cases more deeply and grasp that the big boys aren't playing semantics...
ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL
434 U.S. 374 (1978)
Decided January 18, 1978 (before Baker):
" The woman whom appellee desired to marry had a fundamental right to seek an abortion of their expected child, or to bring the child into life to suffer the myriad social, if not economic, disabilities that the status of illegitimacy brings. Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."
when the court says one IMPLIES the other, you are hard pressed to say they are not related at all...
hmmm..... "the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relationships to legally take place."

Of course THAT has never changed, has it? <smirk>
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#739
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
And your posts, providing no thought at all, are clearly less valuable..
face it, you are a childish angry troll...
I mean look at your post you fraud...
What job did you have at GE?
Why wont you say, I know why...
Starts with an "F" and ends with a "raud"...
Your opinion of me is valueless. And it certainly doesn't change the fact that gay Californians can make wedding plans for June. Prop 8 is going down.

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#740
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
they did not follow his critical reasoning at all...
and in so doing changed the very decision being reviewed (notably by removing any claim to a fundamental right...)
how would you convey that to lay people?
Not true. You need to stop ascribing motives. The 9th merely cherrypicked from Walker's ruling those portions that specifically related to the appeal before them, leaving the rest as simply not pertinent to the appeal.
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#741
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
hmmm..... "the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relationships to legally take place."
Of course THAT has never changed, has it? <smirk>
sure. but that does not change that one right implied another...
but thank you for pointing out our deep history of connecting procreation and marriage...
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#742
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Your opinion of me is valueless.
right now just apply this CONSISTENTLY...
even more so, I actually enjoy your hating me...
its that in reality I have a great job, and a great life that makes it so fun...
and you wont admit what your job was or where you live, and I know why...
and say, are you married yet?

no wonder you ignore reality...
DUDE.
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#743
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true. You need to stop ascribing motives. The 9th merely cherrypicked from Walker's ruling those portions that specifically related to the appeal before them, leaving the rest as simply not pertinent to the appeal.
did walker declare a right to gay marriage?

yes.
did that survive the 9th's review?
NO.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#744
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
false...look into that sparky...
we don't just get to make sh!t up...
I'd rather you inform me how you arrived at your opinion. Given that I am not a lawyer, I might not be 100% correct, but I'm pretty sure that Walker ruled against Prop 8 because it took away a pre-existing state constitutional right, and precedent shows that doing so violates the 14th.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#745
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
sure. but that does not change that one right implied another...
but thank you for pointing out our deep history of connecting procreation and marriage...
Implied what? That only married people can have legal sex? Puh-leez.
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#746
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
did walker declare a right to gay marriage?
yes.
did that survive the 9th's review?
NO.
So. Do you think that SCOTUS can't rule that there is?
Jane Dodo

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#747
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
right now just apply this CONSISTENTLY...
even more so, I actually enjoy your hating me...
its that in reality I have a great job, and a great life that makes it so fun...
and you wont admit what your job was or where you live, and I know why...
and say, are you married yet?
no wonder you ignore reality...
DUDE.
hahahahaha
ahahahahahah
ahahahahahhaha

That's good! Completely irrelevant, but funny just the same.

hahahaha
ahahahahha
ahahahahah

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#748
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
It wouldn't be politically acceptable even for the Republicans to oppose a judicial nominee just for being gay, as much as they might want to.

Yes, obviously that's the current state of federal law. Who ever said it wasn't?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#749
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
did walker declare a right to gay marriage?
yes.
did that survive the 9th's review?
NO.
Walker's ruling wasn't overturned, it was just ignored. The 9th circuit decided to rule on entirely different grounds which is their prerogative.

The SCOTUS can rule on either the 9th circuits ruling, Judge Walker's ruling or something entirely different.
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#750
Jan 24, 2013
 
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd rather you inform me how you arrived at your opinion. Given that I am not a lawyer, I might not be 100% correct, but I'm pretty sure that Walker ruled against Prop 8 because it took away a pre-existing state constitutional right, and precedent shows that doing so violates the 14th.
no, you are speaking of the 9th circuit decision and how they decided to uphold the decision while ignoring all that walker "found"...
like a right to gay marriage...

and if you want someone to explain, the least effective way is to call them ignorant...
straight shooter

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#751
Jan 24, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Walker's ruling wasn't overturned, it was just ignored. The 9th circuit decided to rule on entirely different grounds which is their prerogative.
The SCOTUS can rule on either the 9th circuits ruling, Judge Walker's ruling or something entirely different.
they could rule on a dr suess book, but the fact is that the decision under review is the 9th's...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 681 - 700 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••