Like Hamilton Burger BLAG Loses On DOMA Again As GLAD Plays Perry Mason

Aug 1, 2012 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.forbes.com

You have to be on the elderly side to remember Hamilton Burger. He was the prosecutor who always lost to Perry Mason. The spirit of Hamilton Burger lives on in the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group.

Comments
1 - 12 of 12 Comments Last updated Aug 3, 2012
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 1, 2012
 
From the article: "After many pages the Court concludes that gay people are a suspect class, but that it really does not matter, because they don’t need strict scrutiny to throw out Section 3 of DOMA, because it does not have a rational basis."

Wait. What did the Court say?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mona Lott wrote:
From the article: "After many pages the Court concludes that gay people are a suspect class, but that it really does not matter, because they don’t need strict scrutiny to throw out Section 3 of DOMA, because it does not have a rational basis."
Wait. What did the Court say?
A very simple analogy. You've just reopened your carton of milk and the smell you've been greeted with from two feet away, tells you that no further inquiry is needed. There is no need to pour it into a glass to see if there's any hope and there is certainly no reason for you to try a drink just too make sure.

The Courts are once again telling us that while we're worth the taste test, the fact that DOMA fails the smell test so laughingly and so badly, we're not going to get it. The recognition of suspect classification on the basis of sexual orientation would be a major game changer and while the lower courts keep hinting that is the approach that they should be taking here, but there's no direction from above to let them do it. It's the one negative legacy of the Romer decision, it took the absolutely brilliant ruling against it by the Colorado Supreme Court, which took the amendment to the woodshed with a two by four and recognized sexual orientation as a suspect classification and turned it into, pointing out the obvious that the first thing you noticed about Amendment 2 was its awful stank, they weren't going to put it to the taste test.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 1, 2012
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>A very simple analogy. You've just reopened your carton of milk and the smell you've been greeted with from two feet away, tells you that no further inquiry is needed. There is no need to pour it into a glass to see if there's any hope and there is certainly no reason for you to try a drink just too make sure.
The Courts are once again telling us that while we're worth the taste test, the fact that DOMA fails the smell test so laughingly and so badly, we're not going to get it. The recognition of suspect classification on the basis of sexual orientation would be a major game changer and while the lower courts keep hinting that is the approach that they should be taking here, but there's no direction from above to let them do it. It's the one negative legacy of the Romer decision, it took the absolutely brilliant ruling against it by the Colorado Supreme Court, which took the amendment to the woodshed with a two by four and recognized sexual orientation as a suspect classification and turned it into, pointing out the obvious that the first thing you noticed about Amendment 2 was its awful stank, they weren't going to put it to the taste test.
That was a disgusting analogy !

And the reason Perry Mason always won his cases (except one) is cuz Perry Mason was gay and gay guys ALWAYS WIN !

:)

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

FaFoxy wrote:
That was a disgusting analogy !
And the reason Perry Mason always won his cases (except one) is cuz Perry Mason was gay and gay guys ALWAYS WIN !
:)
I've actually left out the grossest parts of it, just imagine how intermediate scrutiny is explained, not to mention why we're testing your milk in the first place.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 1, 2012
 
From the article:

" ... Among the factors determining whether a group is a “suspect class” is a long history of discrimination. BLAG comes up with a rather strange argument that there has not been discrimination against gay people for all that long, barely a century or so. Much before the 20th century there weren’t any gay people."

BLAG owes me a new keyboard. Coffee ALL over it.

Since: Jan 08

Chachoengsao, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 1, 2012
 
And to think that tax money, yours and mine, went to pay for the idiocy of BLAG. God, I hate republicans!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 1, 2012
 
Dubya wrote:
And to think that tax money, yours and mine, went to pay for the idiocy of BLAG. God, I hate republicans!
We actually NEED the BLAG to defend DOMA, otherwise there would be a summary judgment in favor of the plaintifs and the cases would never get to the SCOTUS. Without a SCOTUS ruling, the lower court ruling would only apply to those particular plaintifs, or at most to same-sex couples in that jurisdiction.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Oct 10

Coolidge, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Aug 1, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
We actually NEED the BLAG to defend DOMA, otherwise there would be a summary judgment in favor of the plaintifs and the cases would never get to the SCOTUS. Without a SCOTUS ruling, the lower court ruling would only apply to those particular plaintifs, or at most to same-sex couples in that jurisdiction.
SCOTUS may decline to hear the case.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Aug 1, 2012
 
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS may decline to hear the case.
Possible, but without someone defending the DOMA cases it would never get to that point in the first place.

Since the GOPasaurs have control of the House, the only realistic way to get rid of DOMA is to get it before the SCOTUS.

Since: Jan 08

Bangkok, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
We actually NEED the BLAG to defend DOMA, otherwise there would be a summary judgment in favor of the plaintifs and the cases would never get to the SCOTUS. Without a SCOTUS ruling, the lower court ruling would only apply to those particular plaintifs, or at most to same-sex couples in that jurisdiction.
Okay, but I still hate republicans! If it weren't for them there would not have been DOMA in the first place.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 2, 2012
 
FaFoxy wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS may decline to hear the case.
Let's hope.

This case, and the other DOMA cases contain both a chess fork and a poison pill.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Aug 3, 2012
 
Dubya wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, but I still hate republicans! If it weren't for them there would not have been DOMA in the first place.
Unfortunately the Dems have to accept their fair share of the blame for DOMA, since the majority of them voted for it as well.

But that's all water under the bridge now; the Dems have finally moved to full support of marriage equality, with a few exceptions. The battle lines are clearly drawn going forward, and this only ends with equality.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••