Ex-judge predicts "spectacular" argum...

Ex-judge predicts "spectacular" argument against Prop. 8

There are 183 comments on the blog.sfgate.com story from Mar 23, 2013, titled Ex-judge predicts "spectacular" argument against Prop. 8. In it, blog.sfgate.com reports that:

The now-retired federal judge who struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage has caused a bit of a stir in an e-mail exchange, leaked to a conservative blogger, in which he predicts the lawyer advocating gay marriage rights will present a "spectacular" argument to the Supreme Court.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at blog.sfgate.com.

Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#63 Mar 25, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't think the same-sex marriage question is important enough to most people to create new national political trends.
depends how offended people get...
your agenda has had almost total control over the messaging but that can turn ugly if the masses aren't buying...

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#64 Mar 25, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
his assumption that all opposition is bigotry is proof of his own bias.
Feel free to quote from and link to his opinion exactly where he said this.
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
His rabid variance from the rational basis standard.
Feel free to quote from and link to any part of his opinion that is at "rabid variance" with the rational basis standard. What rational basis exists to deny civil marriage to same-sex couples?
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
His gross mischaracterization of prior scotus precedent.
There is only one prior same-sex marriage case that ever reached the SCOTUS, one that never got a hearings, was never briefed, and one that has absolutely no precedential value at all since the grounds for its dismissal (want of a substantial federal question) no longer exists.
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
Ya know, all the stuff the 9th circuit wrote out of his opinion...
Feel free to quote from that portion of the 9th Circuit opinion that concluded that Walker was biased.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#65 Mar 25, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
depends how offended people get...
your agenda has had almost total control over the messaging but that can turn ugly if the masses aren't buying...
As I've pointed out, there just aren't enough of you to generate a significant national trend.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#66 Mar 25, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
As he or she is a non-citizen of the U.S., yes.
Dual citizenship IS legal in the U.S. So a person COULD be both a U.S. citizen AND a British citizen. SHOULD a person holding dual citizenship, especially in a country that is a monarchy, be disallowed from a judgeship here in the U.S.?

My point is that Roman Catholics hold an allegiance t the Pope, WHO IS a Head of State. Whether you like it or not, that IS a FACT. And because of that, I do not think that a Roman Catholic should be a SCOTUS justice. There is NO other religious group in the world that inists on being a sovereign nation. But with that right, comes certain responsibilities, and penalties. I don't think one can have it both ways.

And let me remind you, that BECAUSE of this situation, until recently, federal law SPECIFICALLY BARRED the U.S. from having diplomatic relations with The Vatican. That federal law was on the books for well more than 100 years, and although I understand why it was repealed, in hindsight, I think that that was a mistake, and that congress should reinstate that law.

Why should the Roman Catholic Church be treated differently and "special" from every other religion, Christian, and non-Christian, in the world, PARTICLULARLY since the First Amendment bars congress from passing ANY laws regarding religion ???
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#67 Mar 25, 2013
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Feel free to quote from and link to his opinion exactly where he said this.
<quoted text>
Feel free to quote from and link to any part of his opinion that is at "rabid variance" with the rational basis standard. What rational basis exists to deny civil marriage to same-sex couples?
<quoted text>
There is only one prior same-sex marriage case that ever reached the SCOTUS, one that never got a hearings, was never briefed, and one that has absolutely no precedential value at all since the grounds for its dismissal (want of a substantial federal question) no longer exists.
<quoted text>
Feel free to quote from that portion of the 9th Circuit opinion that concluded that Walker was biased.
I do feel free...
thanks.
its all there and i am not the only commnetator who says eactly this...
and as I said, ya know, all the same stuff the 9th circuit did..

"and one that has absolutely no precedential value at all since the grounds for its dismissal (want of a substantial federal question) no longer exists."

this is flat wrong BTW.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#68 Mar 25, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
As I've pointed out, there just aren't enough of you to generate a significant national trend.
and as you said, right now, many don't care...but lets see how they like being called bigots...

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#69 Mar 25, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I do feel free...
thanks.
its all there and i am not the only commnetator who says eactly this...
and as I said, ya know, all the same stuff the 9th circuit did..
In other words, you won't provide the evidence to support your claims. Got it.
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
"and one that has absolutely no precedential value at all since the grounds for its dismissal (want of a substantial federal question) no longer exists."
this is flat wrong BTW.
Feel free to show how my statement is wrong.

Baker v Nelson was dismissed by the SCOTUS "for want of a substantial federal question." In order for that case to serve as a binding precedent, in Mandel v Bradley (1977) the SCOTUS laid out the rules to guide lower courts about the use of such summary dismissals:

1) The facts in the potentially binding case must not bear any legally significant differences to the case under consideration.
2) The binding precedent encompasses only the issues presented to the Court, not the reasoning found in the lower court's decision.
3) Of the issues presented, only those necessarily decided by the Court in dismissing the case control.
4) Subsequent developments by the Court on the relevant doctrines may cast doubt on the continuing validity of a summary judgment.

The facts are significantly different in the two cases before the court now; the reasoning of the lower court does not hold; the lack of a substantial federal question can be the only issue of potential precedential value; and, most importantly, all three branches of the federal government have made gay rights and civil marriage a federal question -- the Court in Romer and Lawrence and the executive and Congress in passing DOMA.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#70 Mar 25, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
I really don't think the same-sex marriage question is important enough to most people to create new national political trends.
Nor do I, which I why I qualified my statement by first adding "If that were so,".

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#71 Mar 25, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I do feel free...
thanks.
its all there and i am not the only commnetator who says eactly this...
and as I said, ya know, all the same stuff the 9th circuit did..
"and one that has absolutely no precedential value at all since the grounds for its dismissal (want of a substantial federal question) no longer exists."
this is flat wrong BTW.
Straight Shooter, Jane Doe, Reality and now another nic......what's the problem, no one paying any attention to ya?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#72 Mar 25, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Dual citizenship IS legal in the U.S. So a person COULD be both a U.S. citizen AND a British citizen. SHOULD a person holding dual citizenship, especially in a country that is a monarchy, be disallowed from a judgeship here in the U.S.?
My point is that Roman Catholics hold an allegiance t the Pope, WHO IS a Head of State. Whether you like it or not, that IS a FACT. And because of that, I do not think that a Roman Catholic should be a SCOTUS justice. There is NO other religious group in the world that inists on being a sovereign nation. But with that right, comes certain responsibilities, and penalties. I don't think one can have it both ways.
And let me remind you, that BECAUSE of this situation, until recently, federal law SPECIFICALLY BARRED the U.S. from having diplomatic relations with The Vatican. That federal law was on the books for well more than 100 years, and although I understand why it was repealed, in hindsight, I think that that was a mistake, and that congress should reinstate that law.
Why should the Roman Catholic Church be treated differently and "special" from every other religion, Christian, and non-Christian, in the world, PARTICLULARLY since the First Amendment bars congress from passing ANY laws regarding religion ???
Good lord, if you didn't have your religious bigotry, and your conspiracy theories, you wouldn't have anything. It may be a church-state, but it is still a state, and so long as our laws do not prevent it, the President has the right to send a dignitary to any foreign government he wishes. As for dual-citizens becoming a judge, I am not aware of that situation being a current problem. If and when it does happen, I am sure it will be addressed. And the same goes for a Catholic being a judge or any other office-holder. If it isn't barred by law, it can and will happen. Live with it. We have enough problems happening without adding problems that are non-existent.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#74 Mar 25, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Straight Shooter, Jane Doe, Reality and now another nic......what's the problem, no one paying any attention to ya?
seems you are.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#75 Mar 25, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
seems you are.
Actually, just pointing out yet another nic for the person who claims they know everything that is going to happen!!!
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#76 Mar 25, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, just pointing out yet another nic for the person who claims they know everything that is going to happen!!!
so, you.... are paying attention to me, eh?

what was your point again?
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#77 Mar 25, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me re-phrase that... What is your take on how you think SCOTUS will rule.
(Please, analytics, not politics)
I really don't know, or even have any strong sense how SCOTUS will rule. I think it will be interesting whichever way it goes. Your side may very well prevail, and that's only a gut instinct.

No offense to you intended. You're not one of the nut jobs. You just strongly disagree. I don't fault that. Apologies for not making that more clear.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#78 Mar 26, 2013
Jerald wrote:
Feel free to show how my statement is wrong.
You aren't, and the poster from Middlebury is unlikely to develop the skill to rationally refute your argument, although they might change their screen name a few more times. Won't you jane?

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#79 Mar 26, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I really don't know, or even have any strong sense how SCOTUS will rule. I think it will be interesting whichever way it goes. Your side may very well prevail, and that's only a gut instinct.
No offense to you intended. You're not one of the nut jobs. You just strongly disagree. I don't fault that. Apologies for not making that more clear.
All this surmising by everyone makes for interesting fodder. I don't know how they will rule, and neither does anyone else. The only advantage to all this speculation that I can see is for someone to be able to say, "I told you so" when it finally comes down. I'll just be happy when all the fowl-da-rawl is over, and we can move on to the next step.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#80 Mar 26, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
All this surmising by everyone makes for interesting fodder. I don't know how they will rule, and neither does anyone else. The only advantage to all this speculation that I can see is for someone to be able to say, "I told you so" when it finally comes down. I'll just be happy when all the fowl-da-rawl is over, and we can move on to the next step.
Agreed... although some of the fodder is just crap. Moving on is a very good idea.

“Take Topix Back From Trolls”

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#81 Mar 26, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't think the same-sex marriage question is important enough to most people to create new national political trends.
Actually there are many more engaged in this issue than anything I've seen since 9-11. At least from the noises I'm getting on the net and out in public. Maybe it's because I've dug out my Silence = Death and the Pink Triangle tee shirts just for the hell of it.
BS Detector

Los Angeles, CA

#82 Mar 26, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I really don't think the same-sex marriage question is important enough to most people to create new national political trends.
I think you are absolutely correct.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#83 Mar 26, 2013
BS Detector wrote:
<quoted text> I really don't know, or even have any strong sense how SCOTUS will rule. I think it will be interesting whichever way it goes. Your side may very well prevail, and that's only a gut instinct.
No offense to you intended. You're not one of the nut jobs. You just strongly disagree. I don't fault that. Apologies for not making that more clear.
Well it was very interesting. The argument that procreation is justification for denying same-sex couples the right to marry went off with the justices just as I had expected- like a fart in church.

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News A look at the judges who will rule on Trump's t... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 167
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 2 hr hardscrabble 362
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 hr Frankie Rizzo 49,183
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 25,591
Jade's Stink Ass Gay Cafe 4 hr Hugely Hung Hetero 6
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 5 hr hardscrabble 5,939
News Middle School Gay-Straight Alliance Allowed To ... 6 hr Rev Don Wildmoan 13
News More 6 hr Little Cheerleader 15
More from around the web