Actions Planned for Day of Prop 8 Decision

Jun 15, 2013 Full story: EDGE 45

LGBT activists plan to either party in the streets or mobilize protests on the day the U.S. Supreme Court issues its ruling in the Proposition 8 case.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#1 Jun 15, 2013
We'll know in less than 2 weeks what The Supremes have to say about the matter. I am cautiously optimistic that we shall prevail. :)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2 Jun 15, 2013
The SCotUS can hold off publishing the Decision for as long as they wish.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#3 Jun 15, 2013
snyper wrote:
The SCotUS can hold off publishing the Decision for as long as they wish.
As a separate branch of government, the SCOTUS justices can do pretty much anything they want with regards to the operation of the court.

And since security is so tight regarding the justices, their deliberations, and the writings of their opinions, I don't put any stock at all in any of the so-called SCOTUS "rumors".

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#4 Jun 16, 2013
Regardless of how SCOTUS rules on Prop 8.......this fight unfortunately will not be over......my guess is that SCOTUS will more than likely rule the proponents NEVER had Article 3 Standing to bring the appeal.....why this ruling? Because NONE of the Justices were happy with how the 9th made their ruling in February of 2012........the other ruling that is possible, but not probable in my opinion is just dismissing the appeal because they shouldn't have taken it in the first place......BUT this would leave the 9th's ruling in place......and I'm not sure the Justices like that thought process........so, though I am hoping for a victory regarding Prop 8......I just don't believe the proponents of Prop 8 aka ProtectMarriage.com are going to go quietly into the sunset!!

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#5 Jun 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Regardless of how SCOTUS rules on Prop 8.......this fight unfortunately will not be over......my guess is that SCOTUS will more than likely rule the proponents NEVER had Article 3 Standing to bring the appeal.....why this ruling? Because NONE of the Justices were happy with how the 9th made their ruling in February of 2012........the other ruling that is possible, but not probable in my opinion is just dismissing the appeal because they shouldn't have taken it in the first place......BUT this would leave the 9th's ruling in place......and I'm not sure the Justices like that thought process........so, though I am hoping for a victory regarding Prop 8......I just don't believe the proponents of Prop 8 aka ProtectMarriage.com are going to go quietly into the sunset!!
I think both members will ride quietly off into the sunset.

<s>

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#6 Jun 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Regardless of how SCOTUS rules on Prop 8.......this fight unfortunately will not be over......my guess is that SCOTUS will more than likely rule the proponents NEVER had Article 3 Standing to bring the appeal.....why this ruling? Because NONE of the Justices were happy with how the 9th made their ruling in February of 2012........the other ruling that is possible, but not probable in my opinion is just dismissing the appeal because they shouldn't have taken it in the first place......BUT this would leave the 9th's ruling in place......and I'm not sure the Justices like that thought process........so, though I am hoping for a victory regarding Prop 8......I just don't believe the proponents of Prop 8 aka ProtectMarriage.com are going to go quietly into the sunset!!
What happens if the SCotUS rules that the Governor and AG of California violated their Oaths of Office in not defending PropH8, AND that the Proponents of PropH8 had no Standing to Intervene in the first place?

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#7 Jun 16, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
What happens if the SCotUS rules that the Governor and AG of California violated their Oaths of Office in not defending PropH8, AND that the Proponents of PropH8 had no Standing to Intervene in the first place?
SCOTUS CANNOT rule that "that the Governor and AG of California violated their Oaths of Office in not defending PropH8". That's a States Rights issue EXCLUSIVELY, and SCOTUS has NO jurisdiction in that area.

And contrary to what many people mistakenly believe, States DO have RIGHTS, and "States Rights" is NOT equivalent to racism.

And as far as what SCOTUS MIGHT rule with regards to Prop 8, they can pretty much rule, or decide to not rule, however they wish. And we will know what they have decided in less than 14 days, possibly even as soon as tomorrow.
Arnold

Justice, IL

#8 Jun 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Girly-Man, nice work in Illinois!

Bwahahaha
Arnold

Justice, IL

#9 Jun 16, 2013
Attention Girly-Men

We are prepared for your "rioting" as we celebrate Father's Day [singular--there is no Fatherses' Day or Motherses' Day, Girly-Men].
Stravinsky Riot of Spring

Justice, IL

#10 Jun 16, 2013
And, yes, you will riot.

A homosexual in USA Today said Clarence Thomas was going to vote for homosexual marriage.

Remember, you were considered by the psychiatric profession as pyschotic and delusional within the lifetime of today's doctors.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

Since: Jan 08

Bangkok, Thailand

#11 Jun 16, 2013
The Chicago monkeys are working overtime trying to be clever. They certainly make a good case for abortion, though.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Jun 16, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS CANNOT rule that "that the Governor and AG of California violated their Oaths of Office in not defending PropH8". That's a States Rights issue EXCLUSIVELY, and SCOTUS has NO jurisdiction in that area.
And contrary to what many people mistakenly believe, States DO have RIGHTS, and "States Rights" is NOT equivalent to racism.
And as far as what SCOTUS MIGHT rule with regards to Prop 8, they can pretty much rule, or decide to not rule, however they wish. And we will know what they have decided in less than 14 days, possibly even as soon as tomorrow.
Sure they can rule on that. They asked questions about it during the hearing.

I'm taking bets that they direct their clerks to hold off until after the session is well over and they're out of D.C. for the Summer. Perhaps even when they get back.

If they do something heinous like they did in Citizens United, the anniversary of Stonewall would be a very stupid time to release.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#13 Jun 16, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure they can rule on that. They asked questions about it during the hearing.
I'm taking bets that they direct their clerks to hold off until after the session is well over and they're out of D.C. for the Summer. Perhaps even when they get back.
If they do something heinous like they did in Citizens United, the anniversary of Stonewall would be a very stupid time to release.
Citizens United was the CORRECT CONSTITUTIONAL decision. I can see that as a typical Lib, you are STEADFASTLY OPPOSED to the First Amendment, Freedom Of Speech. Freedom of the Press, and the entire concept of LIBERTY. Typical evil stalinist Democrat.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#14 Jun 16, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
What happens if the SCotUS rules that the Governor and AG of California violated their Oaths of Office in not defending PropH8, AND that the Proponents of PropH8 had no Standing to Intervene in the first place?
Well considering that a District Court already ruled that one can not compel the Governor or AG to defend something they feel is Unconstitutional......my guess is nothing......as for whether or not the proponents had standing to intervene does not mean they had Article 3 Standing to appeal.

I would like the life sucked out of Prop 8, but I do believe this fight is not totally over.....what the proponents can do going forward, I'm not sure about......but I'm certain they will try and do something!!!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#15 Jun 16, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Citizens United was the CORRECT CONSTITUTIONAL decision. I can see that as a typical Lib, you are STEADFASTLY OPPOSED to the First Amendment, Freedom Of Speech. Freedom of the Press, and the entire concept of LIBERTY. Typical evil stalinist Democrat.
Money is a MEGAPHONE, a speech AMPLIFIER. It's not even a mode of Speech. It's definitely NOT Speech itself.

Regardless of the "marxist" lingo copiously slathered all over it to mask it's true nature from the uncritical, "Stalinism" was the absolute collection and centralization of resources, control, power and influence into the hands of a very few, for the benefit and interests of the very few. It was the full and unrestrained fruit of all the evils that Marx railed against, AND is the antithesis of Democracy.

Money allows the voices of everyone to be drowned out by the roar of a very few with expensive megaphones, and further institutionalizes oblique and direct bribery into the system.

How is that democratic?

Citizens United was a textbook case of "straining at gnats and swallowing camels".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16 Jun 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Well considering that a District Court already ruled that one can not compel the Governor or AG to defend something they feel is Unconstitutional......my guess is nothing......as for whether or not the proponents had standing to intervene does not mean they had Article 3 Standing to appeal.
I would like the life sucked out of Prop 8, but I do believe this fight is not totally over.....what the proponents can do going forward, I'm not sure about......but I'm certain they will try and do something!!!
That District Court's Decision was never bumped up as far as the SCotUS.

The general rule is that if an Officeholder in Public Service differs with a lawful requirement of their job title they resign, or finds and assigns an independent party who IS willing to carry out the duty In loco et ad litam. Because the Federal Executive has done so on occasion, yet never been specifically challenged on the matter, it makes this Case involving the California Executive of interest regarding the Constitutionality of such behaviors.

Still, a real possibility that NOBODY is discussing is that the ORIGINAL case before Walker may be invalidated in it's entirety because the Intervenors lacked Standing.

With the California Executive's behavior in Constitutional question, and PropH8 lacking the Legally mandated Defense, I'm in a bit of a quandary what that does to the original Petition and all the work we've done.

Again, my concern is that if the SCotUS can swallow the camel "money is speech" in Citizens United, and that with a Bench seating two who should have recused themselves ... well ... Alice had nothing on how I feel at this croquet party.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

#17 Jun 16, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
That District Court's Decision was never bumped up as far as the SCotUS.
The general rule is that if an Officeholder in Public Service differs with a lawful requirement of their job title they resign, or finds and assigns an independent party who IS willing to carry out the duty In loco et ad litam. Because the Federal Executive has done so on occasion, yet never been specifically challenged on the matter, it makes this Case involving the California Executive of interest regarding the Constitutionality of such behaviors.
Still, a real possibility that NOBODY is discussing is that the ORIGINAL case before Walker may be invalidated in it's entirety because the Intervenors lacked Standing.
With the California Executive's behavior in Constitutional question, and PropH8 lacking the Legally mandated Defense, I'm in a bit of a quandary what that does to the original Petition and all the work we've done.
Again, my concern is that if the SCotUS can swallow the camel "money is speech" in Citizens United, and that with a Bench seating two who should have recused themselves ... well ... Alice had nothing on how I feel at this croquet party.
Allowing the proponents to intervene at the District level is not the same as having Standing to appeal!!!

I believe Judge Walker's ruling will stand......it's just a matter of if being applied state wide or just to the 2 couples!!

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#18 Jun 16, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Money is a MEGAPHONE, a speech AMPLIFIER. It's not even a mode of Speech. It's definitely NOT Speech itself.
Regardless of the "marxist" lingo copiously slathered all over it to mask it's true nature from the uncritical, "Stalinism" was the absolute collection and centralization of resources, control, power and influence into the hands of a very few, for the benefit and interests of the very few. It was the full and unrestrained fruit of all the evils that Marx railed against, AND is the antithesis of Democracy.
Money allows the voices of everyone to be drowned out by the roar of a very few with expensive megaphones, and further institutionalizes oblique and direct bribery into the system.
How is that democratic?
Citizens United was a textbook case of "straining at gnats and swallowing camels".
Whether you like it or not, that's the law and you'er going to have to live with it, or move to Russia since that is where your Stalinist hear lies.

And I'm sure there are plenty more SCOTUS decisions that you don't like, just as I have SCOTUS decisions that I don't like. And some of those SCOTUS decisions are CLEARLY WRONG because they violate the U.S. Constitution. Such as "OBAMACARE". I'm sure we could argue about those all day too if either of us wanted to.

And btw, speaking of OBAMACARE, some Democrats have been calling it a train wreck, and as was said well more than a hundred years ago, if congress wants to block something the POTUS wants, since the congress has the power of the purse strings, all they have to do is withhold funding for something they don't like. The most prominent recent example is congress' refusal to provide funding for shutting down the prison at Guantanamo Bay and having the terrorists transferred to the U.S. Even the Democrats in congress who had an overwhelming majority in the first 2 years of The Obamaniac Regime, REFUSED to provide funding for that.

In like manner also, all that has to be done to stop OBAMACARE dead in it's tracks is for current and future congresses to refuse to provide funding to carry it out. It will wither and die. Or a future congress will get sensible and repeal it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#19 Jun 16, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Allowing the proponents to intervene at the District level is not the same as having Standing to appeal!!!
I believe Judge Walker's ruling will stand......it's just a matter of if being applied state wide or just to the 2 couples!!
Yet the SCotUS asked for discussion regarding Standing, and NOT just of Standing to Appeal. They also questioned regarding Standing to Intervene.

The issue appears to be unresolved whether Standing according to the California Constitution should carry anything other than advisory weight against Federal Rules on Standing as applied to Cases brought before ANY level of Federal Court.

As I've said, NOBODY is discussing this; and if I'M thinking it you can bet that the clerks who write preparatory and follow-up position and strategy papers for the Justices are, too.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#20 Jun 16, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether you like it or not, that's the law and you'er going to have to live with it, or move to Russia since that is where your Stalinist hear lies.
And I'm sure there are plenty more SCOTUS decisions that you don't like, just as I have SCOTUS decisions that I don't like. And some of those SCOTUS decisions are CLEARLY WRONG because they violate the U.S. Constitution. Such as "OBAMACARE". I'm sure we could argue about those all day too if either of us wanted to.
And btw, speaking of OBAMACARE, some Democrats have been calling it a train wreck, and as was said well more than a hundred years ago, if congress wants to block something the POTUS wants, since the congress has the power of the purse strings, all they have to do is withhold funding for something they don't like. The most prominent recent example is congress' refusal to provide funding for shutting down the prison at Guantanamo Bay and having the terrorists transferred to the U.S. Even the Democrats in congress who had an overwhelming majority in the first 2 years of The Obamaniac Regime, REFUSED to provide funding for that.
In like manner also, all that has to be done to stop OBAMACARE dead in it's tracks is for current and future congresses to refuse to provide funding to carry it out. It will wither and die. Or a future congress will get sensible and repeal it.
Members of Congress have EVERY right to call "Obamacare" a trainwreck ... because THEY WROTE IT ... with the altruistic help of lot$ of in$urance lobbyi$t$, too.

It's a mess because of the forced compromises to get it passed at all.

The simplest solution would have been to remove the age restriction from the Medicare Act.

(N.B. There is a nationwide movement afoot to repeal corporate personhood, returning sovereignty and responsibility to the individual Citizen, and reasserting the unamplified voice of the individual PERSON, not their bank accounts. You should like that. It's completely in character with what the Libertarians USED TO BE ABOUT.)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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
Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Se... 17 min Wondering 237
Church boots AA group over gay weddings 17 min DNF 148
Judge Strikes Down NC Gay Marriage Ban 36 min WasteWater 90
Hitching Post wedding chapel sues over gay marr... 38 min Wondering 40
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 43 min The_Box 25,341
Gay marriage spreads in NC 1 hr Your Prince Will ... 6
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr D-U-H 50,634

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE