Supreme Court Will Hear DOMA and Prop...

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

There are 769 comments on the www.towleroad.com story from Dec 7, 2012, titled Supreme Court Will Hear DOMA and Prop 8 Challenges: An Analysis. In it, www.towleroad.com reports that:

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 .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.towleroad.com.

straight shooter

Barre, VT

#752 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Implied what? That only married people can have legal sex? Puh-leez.
don't pretend your dumb interpretations come from me...
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#753 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>So. Do you think that SCOTUS can't rule that there is?
question is WILL THEY?
there is a reason the gays "in the know" are afraid...
if you weren't so dumb you would be too...
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#754 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>
hahahahaha
ahahahahahah
ahahahahahhaha
That's good! Completely irrelevant, but funny just the same.
hahahaha
ahahahahha
ahahahahah
typing out laughter and playing with the icons is the perfect indicators of your ability...
as in lack thereof...

say, what job did you have at GE?
dodge again DUDE...
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#755 Jan 24, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
don't pretend your dumb interpretations come from me...
It was YOUR quote, shit-for-brains.
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#756 Jan 24, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
question is WILL THEY?
there is a reason the gays "in the know" are afraid...
if you weren't so dumb you would be too...
Afraid of what? Your idiocy? Prop 8 is going down. That's a certainty. So is DOMA.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#757 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Afraid of what? Your idiocy? Prop 8 is going down. That's a certainty. So is DOMA.
can you even see with your head that deep in the sand?

DOMA is not going to survive ,an dit shouldn't as the states regulate marriage...
but there is a reason they chose to take both cases and why they chose the 2nd circuit DOMA case and not the first circuit...
do you even have any clue what I am talking about?
I doubt it...

just play with the icons and snark all over the board and stop pretending you have any real perspective here!
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#758 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>It was YOUR quote, shit-for-brains.
"implied what? That only married people can have legal sex? Puh-leez."

Now show me where that was MY QUOTE you fraudulent LIAR!

I'm on to you...you are not smart enough to play like this...
stick to the icons darlin...
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#759 Jan 24, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
"implied what? That only married people can have legal sex? Puh-leez."
Now show me where that was MY QUOTE you fraudulent LIAR!
I'm on to you...you are not smart enough to play like this...
stick to the icons darlin...
Easy. Here ya go:

"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."
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#760 Jan 24, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
can you even see with your head that deep in the sand?
DOMA is not going to survive ,an dit shouldn't as the states regulate marriage...
but there is a reason they chose to take both cases and why they chose the 2nd circuit DOMA case and not the first circuit...
do you even have any clue what I am talking about?
I doubt it...
just play with the icons and snark all over the board and stop pretending you have any real perspective here!
blah, blah, blah....

OOOOOOOOOOO..... is there some kind of hidden, double-secret code that SCOTUS has for picking cases? Did they offer a reason for their picks? NO.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#761 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.
Did they specifically Rule that there wasn't, or merely state that it wasn't within the scope of their Ruling ... or not mention it at all because it didn't bear upon the wording of the Appeal before them?

Correct answer: C
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#762 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>Easy. Here ya go:
"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."
you wrote:
"That only married people can have legal sex? "

is that my QUOTE?
NO!
its your incorrect and frankly stupid interpretation...
the quote merely spoke about bastardy which was having a child out of wedlock, no one but an idiot would suggest it was only legal to have sex as a married couple, but you are the idiot you are...
so i repeat, would you pleas stop pretending your ignorant interpretations have anything to do with me?
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#763 Jan 24, 2013
Jane Dodo wrote:
<quoted text>blah, blah, blah....
OOOOOOOOOOO..... i
yup, you are childish and pathetic...
what job did you have at GE?
not enough for the 1.5 million dollar condo you lied about having...
what a fraud you are...
I am on to you DUDE...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#764 Jan 24, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
they could rule on a dr suess book, but the fact is that the decision under review is the 9th's...
Obviously.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#765 Jan 24, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
or not mention it at all because it didn't bear upon the wording of the Appeal before them?
right, so is that claim of a right a part of the appeal before the scotus?

so we can expect that the scotus will only decide the case in the front of them as well, right?

sop is Walker's reasoning before the scotus or no?
exactly...
its DEAD as it should be for the dishonest and shallow legal analysis that is was...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#766 Jan 24, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
can you even see with your head that deep in the sand?
DOMA is not going to survive ,an dit shouldn't as the states regulate marriage...
but there is a reason they chose to take both cases and why they chose the 2nd circuit DOMA case and not the first circuit...
do you even have any clue what I am talking about?
I doubt it...
just play with the icons and snark all over the board and stop pretending you have any real perspective here!
Unless you can channel the SCOTUS justices, you have no more idea why they took the cases they did than anyone else.

You can make an educated guess, just as I can, but in the end will will only be a guess.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#767 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...
I prefer to read the ACTUAL cases being considered, not something from 1978 which may or may not have any bearing on the current cases, since it's up to the individual justices to decide for themselves what is relevant.

IF it was the same 9 justices today as in 1978, then you might have a point.

It's not.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#768 Jan 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless you can channel the SCOTUS justices, you have no more idea why they took the cases they did than anyone else.
You can make an educated guess, just as I can, but in the end will will only be a guess.
I would caution you from jumping in between mona and I...
I have stooped to his level on that front...
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#769 Jan 24, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
you wrote:
"That only married people can have legal sex? "
is that my QUOTE?
NO!
its your incorrect and frankly stupid interpretation...
the quote merely spoke about bastardy which was having a child out of wedlock, no one but an idiot would suggest it was only legal to have sex as a married couple, but you are the idiot you are...
so i repeat, would you pleas stop pretending your ignorant interpretations have anything to do with me?
Only an idiot? You quoted it, silly thing.

"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."
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#770 Jan 24, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I prefer to read the ACTUAL cases being considered, not something from 1978 which may or may not have any bearing on the current cases, since it's up to the individual justices to decide for themselves what is relevant.
IF it was the same 9 justices today as in 1978, then you might have a point.
It's not.
I think you ignore the power of stare decisis. The judges need to respect the earlier decision lest their own judgments be short lived and not eternal like they would prefer to believe...
Jane Dodo

West New York, NJ

#771 Jan 24, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
right, so is that claim of a right a part of the appeal before the scotus?
so we can expect that the scotus will only decide the case in the front of them as well, right?
sop is Walker's reasoning before the scotus or no?
exactly...
its DEAD as it should be for the dishonest and shallow legal analysis that is was...
ahahahahah
ahahahahahah
ahahahahahahha

And black is white.

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
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr cpeter1313 8,430
News Churches threaten to dismiss staff who wed same... 4 hr Penectomies4RCC P... 6
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) Sat huh 32,016
News ACT's first same sex newlyweds worry postal sur... Sat Carmine 1
News Space ship found in ice, Hillary's boozing, and... Sat Tex- 19
News UK's first lesbian interfaith wedding Aug 18 Wholly Silicon Wafer 3
News Archbishop enters gay marriage debate Aug 18 Wholly Silicon Wafer 2
More from around the web