US Supreme Court Allots Lengthy Time ...

US Supreme Court Allots Lengthy Time for Arguments

There are 236 comments on the blogs.wsj.com story from Mar 4, 2013, titled US Supreme Court Allots Lengthy Time for Arguments. In it, blogs.wsj.com reports that:

The Supreme Court has allotted an hour and 50 minutes of argument time for one of the two gay-marriage cases it is hearing in late March, nearly twice the usual length of arguments at the high court.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at blogs.wsj.com.

First Prev
of 12
Next Last

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1 Mar 4, 2013
With 50 briefs supporting equality previously submitted, there is plenty of ground to cover. Dispelling the irrational excuses used to deny equality for decades, would require much more time without those briefs, and it will be important to enter the evidence into the record.

Links to PDF copies of major amicus briefs filed in support of the constitutional challenge to California's Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that eliminated equal marriage rights for same-sex partners:

http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx...

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#4 Mar 4, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
Subeversion and decadence.
Such a ruling from a state arguably responsible for the moral corruption of possibly billions of human beings could never be taken seriosly for we all know the judgement to be handed down from what is the test capital for excess, vice, sexual disobedience, subversion and decadence.
If hell ever had a capitol.
Goodbye Rome
If you want to live in a theocracy you are encouraged to move to one of the countries that currently operate that way. Try the middle east -- their religious police have a firm grip on secular laws there.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#6 Mar 4, 2013
SAVE the children !

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#8 Mar 4, 2013
The oral agruments are just a dog & pony show with the justices asking quesitons they already know the answer to.

That's why Thomas never asks any questions; his mind is already made up.

But they have to pretend they haven't all prejudged any case.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#9 Mar 4, 2013
Almost two hours! This is going to be good!

Think they will be nominated for an Oscar?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10 Mar 4, 2013
Grandmother n Grandfather wrote:
The inescapable truth is for any child to wake up one night from a nightmare only to find no motherly companionship into another nightmare.
The worse is yet to come.
pRoPhEcY
R
O
p
H
e
C
y
So you have nothing based on fact to add to the thread. Good to know.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#11 Mar 4, 2013
I don't like when you can't read the whole article.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#13 Mar 4, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
Try standing on your head tony.
That was stupid. You have to pay to subscribe to the site to read it. Not happening.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#14 Mar 4, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That was stupid. You have to pay to subscribe to the site to read it. Not happening.
It does however, provide a link to the brief arguing BLAG lacks standing, and therefore the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction.

Looks like the Supremes have a clear way out of taking this case if they should choose to.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#15 Mar 4, 2013
snyper wrote:
Almost two hours! This is going to be good!
Think they will be nominated for an Oscar?
After Scalia's statement in his Lawrence dissent that there is now no justification for denial of marriage equality, it will be interesting to see how he deals with his own claim. As he has publicly stated tradition alone is a sufficient reason for discrimination, I suspect that will be his excuse. But they may deny standing in both cases, and let the appellate rulings stand, avoiding the whole issue for now. The suspense is distracting.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#18 Mar 5, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
Subeversion and decadence.
.........
Marriage?

Really?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#19 Mar 5, 2013
Grandmother n Grandfather wrote:
The inescapable truth is for any child to wake up one night from a nightmare only to find no motherly companionship into another nightmare.
.
Some kids have two of those loving Moms ...

Lucky children.

And some have the gentle hands and strong arms of loving Fathers to hold them and comfort their fears.

Lucky children.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#20 Mar 5, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Some kids have two of those loving Moms ...
Lucky children.
And some have the gentle hands and strong arms of loving Fathers to hold them and comfort their fears.
Lucky children.
It still just astounds me that the idiots are all wetting their pants over kids of same-sex couples not having parents of both genders in the house with them 24/7, yet they apparently see no problem at all with the hundreds of thousands of kids being raised in single-parent homes by either a divorced or never married heterosexual parent. Unbelievable.

I guess that shows where their real concerns lie, doesn't it? Not with the children at all, but with demonizing gay people.

Gee. Who'd a thought that??

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#21 Mar 5, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
It still just astounds me that the idiots are all wetting their pants over kids of same-sex couples not having parents of both genders in the house with them 24/7, yet they apparently see no problem at all with the hundreds of thousands of kids being raised in single-parent homes by either a divorced or never married heterosexual parent. Unbelievable.
I guess that shows where their real concerns lie, doesn't it? Not with the children at all, but with demonizing gay people.
Gee. Who'd a thought that??
They also don't seem to care that around 100,000 kids available for adoption go without homes every year, remaining in institutional care.

Most of those kids have been abused as well as abandoned by their heterosexual parents, yet they want to believe heterosexual parents are always better than gay parents who are actually motivated to be parents, while many straight parents are not motivated, and don't want to even be parents.

Clearly, thier concern is about maintaining anti-gay prejudice and discrimination, not providing a loving home for children.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#24 Mar 5, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
It does however, provide a link to the brief arguing BLAG lacks standing, and therefore the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction.
Looks like the Supremes have a clear way out of taking this case if they should choose to.
Wouldn't that be a bad thing? That would mean the lower court ruling would stand but only apply to the 1st & 2nd circuits. That leaves out married same-sex couples in the rest of the country.

I think that would just cause a bigger mess.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#26 Mar 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldn't that be a bad thing? That would mean the lower court ruling would stand but only apply to the 1st & 2nd circuits. That leaves out married same-sex couples in the rest of the country.
I think that would just cause a bigger mess.
I'm not suggesting it would be a good thing.

And it would only be a delay, but it would however, slow things down and let the states catch up. Cases would continue to work their way through the other courts, and marriage could be legalized through the lower courts without having to be reviewed by SCOTUS. Ironically, to have standing, you must be harmed, so only a negative ruling would give standing to the same sex couples, who could then appeal to the Supreme Court. But we don't want that either.

Personally, I would like to see a Supreme Court ruling for same sex marriage across the country (Article 4). But after wading through the brief on standing,(I skimmed a lot) it looks like they have a clear option to deny standing and let the appellate ruling be the law.

I hate the suspense, but it will be interesting to "watch". Too bad we can't actually watch it, but AFER will probably be live blogging it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#27 Mar 5, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not suggesting it would be a good thing.
And it would only be a delay, but it would however, slow things down and let the states catch up. Cases would continue to work their way through the other courts, and marriage could be legalized through the lower courts without having to be reviewed by SCOTUS. Ironically, to have standing, you must be harmed, so only a negative ruling would give standing to the same sex couples, who could then appeal to the Supreme Court. But we don't want that either.
Personally, I would like to see a Supreme Court ruling for same sex marriage across the country (Article 4). But after wading through the brief on standing,(I skimmed a lot) it looks like they have a clear option to deny standing and let the appellate ruling be the law.
I hate the suspense, but it will be interesting to "watch". Too bad we can't actually watch it, but AFER will probably be live blogging it.
I agree there are a lot more options for the court than most people realize. Everyone thinks it's going to be a simple yes or no. While I'm not sure about the standing in the DOMA case, I tend to agree the court could easily find ways to slow this down and let the states work it out. I think our victories at the ballot box actually makes that MORE likely. I could see the SCOTUS upholding Prop 8 knowing the voters would almost certainly overturn it at the next election.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#28 Mar 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree there are a lot more options for the court than most people realize. Everyone thinks it's going to be a simple yes or no. While I'm not sure about the standing in the DOMA case, I tend to agree the court could easily find ways to slow this down and let the states work it out. I think our victories at the ballot box actually makes that MORE likely. I could see the SCOTUS upholding Prop 8 knowing the voters would almost certainly overturn it at the next election.
I found the link to the standing brief somewhere on here, and think I re posted it, but can't find it right now. Written by a Harvard law professor, it is technical and heavily documented, but still makes the points fairly clearly. But who knows...

If they do leave it alone, everything else stands, providing several precedents for the other courts to follow or show a good reason why not. And as we keep seeing, the excuses don't stand up under examination.

The standing in the 8 case seems even more at risk, as it isn't even a branch of the govt. that is supporting it, and all of the State government is saying it is unconstitutional. The only opposition is from the group who proposed it, and they can't demonstrate any harm. But the court may want to take it anyway.

Too much suspense.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#29 Mar 5, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Wouldn't that be a bad thing? That would mean the lower court ruling would stand but only apply to the 1st & 2nd circuits. That leaves out married same-sex couples in the rest of the country.
I think that would just cause a bigger mess.
I agree. SCOTUS is going to have to decide for the entire country one way or the other simply for federal tax reasons. You can't have married gay people in one part of the U.S. being able to file jointly and other gay people in other parts of teh U.S. not being able to do so.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#31 Mar 5, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
That's utter hogwash and you know it!
No. It was Fair. And Balanced.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 12
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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 9 min greasy creek 52,221
News Trump bans transgender people from military 12 min Lawrence Wolf 33
News Gay bar opens near Macon Road, drawing visitors... 13 min Rossum 502
News LGBT outrage over Trump ban on transgender mili... 27 min Rossum 3
News Study: 12,000 acts of condomless gay sex, 0 HIV... 29 min Malcom 50
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 34 min Arnold 7,031
News The Latest: Duckworth says transgender ban disc... 1 hr Theocraencyclical 29
More from around the web