Supreme Court Lacking Jurisdiction In DOMA Case?

Jan 25, 2013 | Posted by: Sei | Full story: lezgetreal.com

The United States Supreme Court may not have jurisdiction over the case of Edith Windsor and her challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act
Comments
1 - 20 of 28 Comments Last updated Jan 29, 2013
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 25, 2013
 
The question isn't really whether the Court has jurisdiction, but whether the Bi-partisan Legal Advisory Group had the constitutional standing to proceed in the appeal of Windsor once the Administration accepted the outcome of the trial. If the House has no standing to defend the law, the Court's jurisdiction ended the day Obama announced that they were no longer going to defend it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 25, 2013
 
Any such ruling would result in federal recognition only of marriages in the 2nd circuit, but not in the others where marriage for same-sex couples is legal.

I can't see the SCOTUS intentionally creating such a situation.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 25, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The question isn't really whether the Court has jurisdiction, but whether the Bi-partisan Legal Advisory Group had the constitutional standing to proceed in the appeal of Windsor once the Administration accepted the outcome of the trial. If the House has no standing to defend the law, the Court's jurisdiction ended the day Obama announced that they were no longer going to defend it.
Would that mean Section 3 is gone?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I'm intrigued. And confused. How is it even remotely possible that the SCOTUS wouldn't have jurisdiction over *any* court case with a Federal question??

(and yes, I read the article, but I still don't get it)

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 25, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Any such ruling would result in federal recognition only of marriages in the 2nd circuit, but not in the others where marriage for same-sex couples is legal.
I can't see the SCOTUS intentionally creating such a situation.
Would other cases need to heard? or would the same apply to others as well?

Since: Jan 08

Orlando, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

WeTheSheeple wrote:
Any such ruling would result in federal recognition only of marriages in the 2nd circuit, but not in the others where marriage for same-sex couples is legal.
I can't see the SCOTUS intentionally creating such a situation.
You don't think Scalia and Thomas would be absolutely delighted if they could limit the geographic scope of DOMA's elimination? The amount of bigotry these two have shown tells me they would delay declaring DOMA unconstitutional any way possitble.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

The Executive has decided to not DEFEND the DOMA. It did NOT say that it would not implement and enforce it.

Windsor is petitioning for redress and relief of injury and losses as a result of the implementation and enforcement of DOMA, not from it's defense in any Court. Further, Windsor asserts that these injuries and losses are a direct result of the DOMA itself; that they are unjust, and contrary to well-established Constitutional principles.

This places the Windsor case squarely within the SCOTUS purview.

The argument in this article is an intentional conflation and confusion of two very distinct things; one of proximal effect, and one ancillary.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 25, 2013
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Any such ruling would result in federal recognition only of marriages in the 2nd circuit, but not in the others where marriage for same-sex couples is legal.
I can't see the SCOTUS intentionally creating such a situation.
The administration has surrendered in all the other cases in the pipeline and would be unlikely to put up a fight if a legally married couple sought recognition elsewhere. Section 3 dies with a whimper and a bitch slap to Congress for overstepping their role.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 25, 2013
 
NorCal Native wrote:
Would that mean Section 3 is gone?
Technically, Sheeple is correct, such a ruling would only apply to the Courts of the 2nd District, but since the Administration has also switched sides in all the other cases, DOMA Section 3 died with a whimper based on the Administration's acceptance of the trial court's ruling in Windsor, because they chose not to appeal.

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 25, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>The administration has surrendered in all the other cases in the pipeline and would be unlikely to put up a fight if a legally married couple sought recognition elsewhere. Section 3 dies with a whimper and a bitch slap to Congress for overstepping their role.
The sooner the better......it would help clear up our 2011 tax mess.....I hope!!!

“TAKIA AND TA TONKA”

Since: Aug 08

HAPPY TOGETHER!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 25, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Technically, Sheeple is correct, such a ruling would only apply to the Courts of the 2nd District, but since the Administration has also switched sides in all the other cases, DOMA Section 3 died with a whimper based on the Administration's acceptance of the trial court's ruling in Windsor, because they chose not to appeal.
We are still going to have to wait until June though, right?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 25, 2013
 
snyper wrote:
The Executive has decided to not DEFEND the DOMA. It did NOT say that it would not implement and enforce it.
Windsor is petitioning for redress and relief of injury and losses as a result of the implementation and enforcement of DOMA, not from it's defense in any Court. Further, Windsor asserts that these injuries and losses are a direct result of the DOMA itself; that they are unjust, and contrary to well-established Constitutional principles.
This places the Windsor case squarely within the SCOTUS purview.
The argument in this article is an intentional conflation and confusion of two very distinct things; one of proximal effect, and one ancillary.
It's a badly written headline and an article that isn't much better at explaining it. The question of whether the Supremes have jurisdiction here is based on the question of whether BLAG has standing to proceed with an appeal in a case where the Executive has accepted the ruling. If BLAG has no standing, the Supremes have no jurisdiction to hear the case. It isn't the question of the constitutionality of DOMA itself that raises the question of whether they have jurisdiction, it is who is trying to bring it.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>It's a badly written headline and an article that isn't much better at explaining it. The question of whether the Supremes have jurisdiction here is based on the question of whether BLAG has standing to proceed with an appeal in a case where the Executive has accepted the ruling. If BLAG has no standing, the Supremes have no jurisdiction to hear the case. It isn't the question of the constitutionality of DOMA itself that raises the question of whether they have jurisdiction, it is who is trying to bring it.
"It's a badly written headline.."
What else would you expect from "Lezgetreal"?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jan 25, 2013
 
Just to clarify for everyone-

The question of SCOTUS jurisdiction to hear the DOMA case came from the SCOTUS justices themselves.

THEY asked that the question be addressed by both sides.

It's not like the author of the article just pulled the concept out of his/her butt.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jan 25, 2013
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>It's a badly written headline and an article that isn't much better at explaining it. The question of whether the Supremes have jurisdiction here is based on the question of whether BLAG has standing to proceed with an appeal in a case where the Executive has accepted the ruling. If BLAG has no standing, the Supremes have no jurisdiction to hear the case. It isn't the question of the constitutionality of DOMA itself that raises the question of whether they have jurisdiction, it is who is trying to bring it.
You're suggesting that a case has no validity if there is no viable opponent? The opponent is DOMA itself. What am I not seeing.

It's early morning here and I don't have any caffeine here because coffee doesn't grow around here at all and our camellias aren't mature enough yet.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jan 25, 2013
 
Use crayon.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jan 25, 2013
 
What a clever argument on the Question of BLAG's standing! I don't think anyone can predict how this is going to go now. Either the court won't resist the temptation to answer the question, or they don't even have to. In any case, it is persuasive to argue that less than half the congressional branch is not enough to represent the viewpoint of congress.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

I know I'm out of my league here on most of this but I've been wondering if SCOTUS took the case in an attempt to issue another "Baker style" ruling.

"States Rights" is very popular paintbrush used to whitewash dirt.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
"It's a badly written headline.."
What else would you expect from "Lezgetreal"?
You took the words right out of my mouth.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

You guys leave Bridgette alone.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
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.

•••
•••