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.

Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#223 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
What did the 9th circuit say about a fundamental right for gays to marry in the prop 8 case?
you do know they said there ISN'T ONE right?
The 9th Circuit didn't review the California Supreme Court's ruling of Nov 2008.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#224 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
woof.
says you, which is worthless.
Says you, with no evidence.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#225 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
lol.
yup, that's the stuff.
Yep, and since marriage IS a fundamental right, I can't be denied that right without sufficient justification.

Of course the SCOTUS will determine whether the current justification is sufficient.

Should this SCOTUS decide the current justification IS sufficient justification to deny me that fundamental right, then we'll have to wait for the next SCOTUS and try again.

Eventually we'll get a SCOTUS that rules the current justifications AREN'T sufficient; and then the remaining state bans will fall.

I still think the current SCOTUS will likely duck to core question of whether same-sex couples have the same fundamental right to marry as opposite-sex couples and just kick the can down the road for now. Why stir up a hornet's nest when it's not necessary to resolve the case before them.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#226 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
wow, I almost heard people humming the battle hymn of the republic while reading that...
are you calling me a speeder?
No, I'm calling you a moron.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#227 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
What did the 9th circuit say about a fundamental right for gays to marry in the prop 8 case?
you do know they said there ISN'T ONE right?
But of course they never said any such thing.

The 9th circuit simply didn't address it at all because it wasn't necessary to do so in order to rule on the case.

The 9th cicurit decided the case on the narrowest of three options-#1 was the due process violation
#2 was the equal protection violation
#3 was the removal of an existing right.

They chose to base their ruling on option #3 because it was the narrowest grounds for ruling and courts tend to make the narrowest ruling possible to resolve the issue before them- i.e can same-sex couple marry in California.

They didn't overturn the other 2 ruling of the lower court, they simply found it unnecessary to address them in order to resolve the case.

If you're still confused (which I'm sure you are) just refer to pages 33 & 34 of the ruling.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#228 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
OR, its only IRRATIONAL when you wrongly assume gay marriage is a fundamental right and that everyone is prejudiced against you.
Systemic.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#229 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
What did the 9th circuit say about a fundamental right for gays to marry in the prop 8 case?
you do know they said there ISN'T ONE right?
Also refer to page 48 of their decision-

"We therefore need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lesbians must do so. FURTHER WE EXPRESS NO VIEW ON THOSE QUESTIONS."

(emphasis added)

Oh dear, you're just so WRONG WRONG WRONG yet again.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#230 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Tony typo police...
thanks...but calling out typos dont make you smart...
you're not. its obvious faux elitism...try it on someone else...
A typo is a mistake. That was obviously lack of knowledge, not a mistake.

Disqualified for lack of intelligence.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#231 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, they have. and in all 14 they used the word procreation and once, they even said, all those 14 times, we didn't mean gays...
that's reality kid!
And yet you continue to ignore they used that word to say it is not required. Sex is not even required.

An inconvenient reality perhaps, but the result remains the same. Neither the inability to have sex, nor the inability to procreate, provide a legitimate government interest sufficient for denial of the fundamental right of marriage.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#232 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
What did the 9th circuit say about a fundamental right for gays to marry in the prop 8 case?
you do know they said there ISN'T ONE right?
Quote?

They did not say there is not a right.

They decided they could find prop 8 unconstitutional under the equal protections clause of the 14th without addressing the issue of same sex marriage as being part of the fundamental right of marriage.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#233 Mar 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Also refer to page 48 of their decision-
"We therefore need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lesbians must do so. FURTHER WE EXPRESS NO VIEW ON THOSE QUESTIONS."
(emphasis added)
Oh dear, you're just so WRONG WRONG WRONG yet again.
Thank you.

I remembered that was the effect, but didn't have the quote handy.

And the bottom line remains, they found 8 unconstitutional.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#234 Mar 8, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
I remembered that was the effect, but didn't have the quote handy.
And the bottom line remains, they found 8 unconstitutional.
Yep, and Baker wasn't even mentioned except in the notes to say it wasn't controlling.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#235 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
like how ssm is damaging to society which is why we have laws the way we do right?
just like jersey does right?
I knew you couldn't resist after a few days, you have that "you're not a lawyer" Tourette's problem...
bark away....
Please explain how SSM has damaged the societies of the states in which it is legal.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#236 Mar 8, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
woof.
says you, which is worthless.
You just scored really high on the Lame-o-Meter.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#237 Mar 9, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, they have. and in all 14 they used the word procreation and once, they even said, all those 14 times, we didn't mean gays...
that's reality kid!
They said procreation was a requirement to marry?

Where?
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#238 Mar 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Also refer to page 48 of their decision-
"We therefore need not and do not consider whether same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, or whether states that fail to afford the right to marry to gays and lesbians must do so. FURTHER WE EXPRESS NO VIEW ON THOSE QUESTIONS."
(emphasis added)
Oh dear, you're just so WRONG WRONG WRONG yet again.
But he's a lawyer, don't ya know......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#239 Mar 9, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
But he's a lawyer, don't ya know......
Yeah, another armchair lawyer......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#240 Mar 9, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
I remembered that was the effect, but didn't have the quote handy.
And the bottom line remains, they found 8 unconstitutional.
Keep in mind that the "lawyer" from Vermont also tend to quote from the DISSENTING opinion instead of the MAJORITY opinion.

For some reason this "lawyer" doesn't understand which is the controlling opinion.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#241 Mar 9, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep in mind that the "lawyer" from Vermont also tend to quote from the DISSENTING opinion instead of the MAJORITY opinion.
For some reason this "lawyer" doesn't understand which is the controlling opinion.
That's because he's only a "lawyer" in his own mind.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#242 Mar 9, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
But he's a lawyer, don't ya know......
He's a lawyer's kid.

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 Gay man legally donates blood after a year with... 7 min Gremlin 3
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 18 min June VanDerMark 12,612
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 21 min Tommy 1st Grade 192
News Political Earthquake In California Gay Conserva... 32 min Ann R Kist 2
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Respect71 44,025
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr Big C 23,893
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 1 hr guest 681
More from around the web