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

Dec 7, 2012 Full story: www.towleroad.com 769

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 .

Full Story

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#732 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...
The 9th did NOT "overrule" Walker. You need to get your vocabulary correct.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#733 Jan 24, 2013
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

Montpelier, VT

#734 Jan 24, 2013
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

Montpelier, VT

#735 Jan 24, 2013
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

Montpelier, VT

#736 Jan 24, 2013
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

Montpelier, VT

#737 Jan 24, 2013
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

#738 Jan 24, 2013
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

#739 Jan 24, 2013
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.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#740 Jan 24, 2013
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

Montpelier, VT

#741 Jan 24, 2013
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

Montpelier, VT

#742 Jan 24, 2013
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

Montpelier, VT

#743 Jan 24, 2013
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

#744 Jan 24, 2013
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

#745 Jan 24, 2013
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

#746 Jan 24, 2013
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

#747 Jan 24, 2013
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

#748 Jan 24, 2013
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

#749 Jan 24, 2013
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

Montpelier, VT

#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

Montpelier, VT

#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:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 33 min maurizio74 49,849
87-year-old felon wants back in Congress 38 min Justin 2
Gazans rush to enjoy life after ruinous war 2 hr Grau 25
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 3 hr All Politics Are ... 31,274
It Takes 7 Police Agencies to Break Up Wedding ... 5 hr MAYOR DYSASTER 8
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 6 hr The_Box 25,024
Start Chatting And Dating Beautiful Ukrainian W... 22 hr Lukashenko is Dr ... 4
•••

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••