US Supreme Court Allots Lengthy Time for Arguments

Mar 4, 2013 Full story: blogs.wsj.com 236

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.

Full Story
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

#243 Mar 9, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a lawyer's kid.
Is THAT what it is? lol.... he didn't pick up any logic tips, did he?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#244 Mar 10, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
They said procreation was a requirement to marry?
Where?
This is a semantic game, hoping we won't notice. While true they mentioned procreation, in some instances it was to make it clear procreation was not a requirement.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#245 Mar 10, 2013
The DOMA case won't be resolved solely on states rights because to do so would bring into question the federal ban on polygamy. In addition, just because a state has the right to define marriage doesn't mean they can force the federal govt to recognize and give benefits to those marriages.

The federal govt has the sole authority to decide whether or not to recognize marriages and what rights/benefits they can receive. They can eliminate all marriage rights/benefits at any time; there is no constitutional right to a tax break or sponsoring a spouse for immigration.

BUT, and this is the important part, IF the federal govt chooses to recognize any marriage, then they must do so in a manner consistent with equal protection.

So assuming DOMA is overturned, the decision will have to have some combination of a states rights ruling along with an equal protection ruling.
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#246 Mar 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
So, given the chance, the most liberal district in the land chose not to announce a fundamental right, we agree on this, right?

and read footnote 14, yes, they do not decide, and we all know why....
they were tap dancing around it...they chose the narrow ground specifically because it was going to let them proceed...
if they found a right, they knew it would get immediately accepted and overturned which the 9th expected would not happen here...and CA could float as a rogue...

in other words, those who most want gay marriage did not want that issue before the scotus...and yet here it is...

There is also the issue of application of rational basis standard and how walker totally blew it...
the 9th may not be able to save Walker's decision at its root...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#247 Mar 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
The DOMA case won't be resolved solely on states rights because to do so would bring into question the federal ban on polygamy.
you said it, not me...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#248 Mar 11, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>That's because he's only a "lawyer" in his own mind.
yup, you have tourrette's...

Makes me smile everytime...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#249 Mar 11, 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.
so did the finding of a right survive review?
no.

it is not the rationale carried forward is it?

so yes, you proved the 9th would not find such a right even when Walker did so in the decision which they were reviewing...
yet you declare there is one....
you have less than a 50/50...

so I was not wrong, but you proved I was exactly right...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#250 Mar 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, another armchair lawyer......
this is so funny...do you guys have ANY self awareness?

are you an "armchair lawyer"?
worse yet, which one of us is one in real life?

too funny!!!
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#251 Mar 11, 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.
oh yeah, WHERE?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#252 Mar 11, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>That's because he's only a "lawyer" in his own mind.
or I am only not one in YOUR mind...

there is a reality dude, and one of is is in it, and it aint you!

but I love it each time you insist...

now bark...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#253 Mar 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, and Baker wasn't even mentioned except in the notes to say it wasn't controlling.
no, this is not correct at all. It was in the footnote to say how they would not DECIDE THE ISSUE, the issue you claim is not only ALREADY resolved, but in your favor that gay marriage is like straight marriage as a fundamental right...
the 9th avoided baker by not deciding that issue...it was only "not controlling" since they didnt decide the issue it spoke to...
why would the most liberal court in the land do that????

which makes you...what was that word? oh yeah..
wrong!

I must have asked my dad....right?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#254 Mar 11, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
They said procreation was a requirement to marry?
Where?
Wait until the court explains it to you, then you can call THEM ignorant bigots for a while...

psst, its not them, its you!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#255 Mar 11, 2013
"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate." (Gill v. OPM)

http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#256 Mar 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
So, given the chance, the most liberal district in the land chose not to announce a fundamental right, we agree on this, right?
and read footnote 14, yes, they do not decide, and we all know why....
they were tap dancing around it...they chose the narrow ground specifically because it was going to let them proceed...
if they found a right, they knew it would get immediately accepted and overturned which the 9th expected would not happen here...and CA could float as a rogue...
in other words, those who most want gay marriage did not want that issue before the scotus...and yet here it is...
There is also the issue of application of rational basis standard and how walker totally blew it...
the 9th may not be able to save Walker's decision at its root...
Yes, the 9th circuit did what most courts do- they resolved the case before them on the narrowest grounds possible.

If they were the "liberal actists court" everyone keeps claiming they are, then they would have ruled on the fundament right question.

I do enjoy your continued arrogance to presume to know the "real reason" why the 9th circuit ruled as they did, in spite of their own words as to why they ruled as they did.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#257 Mar 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
so did the finding of a right survive review?
no.
it is not the rationale carried forward is it?
so yes, you proved the 9th would not find such a right even when Walker did so in the decision which they were reviewing...
yet you declare there is one....
you have less than a 50/50...
so I was not wrong, but you proved I was exactly right...
Nope, you're still wrong. Judge Walkers ruling is still there.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#258 Mar 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
this is so funny...do you guys have ANY self awareness?
are you an "armchair lawyer"?
worse yet, which one of us is one in real life?
too funny!!!
The correct question is which one of us CLAIMS to be a lawyer in real life?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#259 Mar 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, the 9th circuit did what most courts do- they resolved the case before them on the narrowest grounds possible.
If they were the "liberal actists court" everyone keeps claiming they are, then they would have ruled on the fundament right question.
not if they wanted to survive review!

The 9th tried to narrow so much to avoid review, yet they didn't..
you should dread this upcoming decision..
but kudos to your optimism, as deluded as it may be...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#260 Mar 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The correct question is which one of us CLAIMS to be a lawyer in real life?
who cares what people CLAIM...
there is a reality off this board dude...
and you will see what I have written in the decision...so why go down this idiotic route?
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#261 Mar 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, you're still wrong. Judge Walkers ruling is still there.
I hope so.

The SCOTUS is going to destroy it just to maintain and clarify rational basis review which walker obviously missed big time...

Again, do you think Kennedy wants gay rights or states rights?

you should listen to all those who did not want review and thought the 9th was genius in getting CA there without review...
but it failed...
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#262 Mar 11, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

I do enjoy your continued arrogance to presume to know the "real reason" why the 9th circuit ruled as they did, in spite of their own words as to why they ruled as they did.
Hey dude, I am just reading what the experts say and not being deluded about it...
one example:
http://electionlawblog.org/...
"By crafting the argument in this way, and making the case that the only reason for passing Prop. 8 was anti-gay animus, Judge Reinhardt has given Justice Kennedy a way to decide the case without embracing a major holding recognizing a right to same sex marriage generally. And just like Romer would have paved a way for an affirmance here, a decision from Justice Kennedy along these lines would make it more likely that when the Supreme Court ultimately does face the same sex marriage question, it could rely on Romer and this case in recognizing such a right."

but I love it every time you try to play the "you're a bad person" game...
except in real life I am a very giving and nice person, so it kinda makes you powerless...
do you guys do ANYTHING in REAL life that you know what I mean?

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
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 6 min Pietro Armando 5,228
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Brian_G 6,117
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 2 hr chris toal 26,961
ACLU sues to allow gay club in Indiana school 2 hr Terre Poot 89
Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays (Oct '07) 2 hr Estelle 219,642
Couples Who Challenged Utah's Gay Marriage Ban ... 3 hr Sir Andrew 4
Add Analog Watch Co. eco-friendly watches to yo... 3 hr stefan 1
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,088
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 68,596
More from around the web