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
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#264 Mar 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Walker missed??????????

hahahahaha
ahahahahhaha
ahahahahahha
ahahahhahahahahah
ahahahahahha
aahahhahaha
ahahahhahaha
aahhahahahaha
aaghahahhahahaha

You wouldn't recognize rational if it kicked you in the nuts.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#265 Mar 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
The 9th knew it was going to be appealed no matter what they did.

Only time will tell which way it goes, yet you still have not offered a legitimate governmental interest for refusing to treat the marriages of same sex couples equally.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#266 Mar 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
I don't know anyone who thought the 9th would avoid review, though the standing issue hasn't been answered yet.

Your crystal ball may not be as clear as you wish to believe.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#267 Mar 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
LOL! As if you know what's going to happen. Loser.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#268 Mar 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Nope, wrong again.

I never the issue of whether same-sex couples have the same right to marry as opposite-sex couples has been resolved by the courts.

Never said it.

Like I said, Baker was only mentioned in the foot notes as irrelevant to the case.

So to recap, nothing I said was wrong.

Now go as your mommy to explain it to you this time, because your dad is obviously another armchair pretend lawyer like you.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#269 Mar 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
And yet you can't provide any evidence that's why they ruled on as narrow a basis as possible.

Let's see, do I believe you or the court which issued the opinion? Oh yeah, that's a difficult one.......

Why should I dread any opinion? If the court rules as I expect them to, we get California back in the marriage equality column. If they somehow manage to uphold Prop 8 then we overturn it at the ballot box next year. Either way prop 8 will be gone.

I don't worry about those things which I have no control over.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#270 Mar 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
YOU are the one who keeps insisting they are a "real" lawyer, so that claim must mean something to you.

We don't really care, expect to point and laugh when you make stupid statements like that.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#271 Mar 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Unlike you, I don't pretend to know what a particular justice is thinking. I'll wait until the decision comes out.

Btw, for someone who has repeatedly claimed in the past not to be anti-gay, you certainly seem to enjoy the prospect of same-sex couples being denied the right to marry.

But then you repeatedly claimed to be a lawyer too, so we know most of what you claim is pure b.s.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#272 Mar 11, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Hey dude, I'd rather take the words of the justices themselves as to why they decided the case the way they did. It's not like they kept it a secret leaving people to speculate. They clearly spelled it out in their ruling.

So once again, do you listen to an "expert" because they back up your own personal theory, or do you listen to the ACTUAL judges in their own words?

You may think you're a "very giving and nice person" in real life, but I doubt most people you know would agree.

Btw, this IS real life as well, unless you're a bot of some kind.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#273 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. 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.
Keep your eye on the phrase "similarly situated".

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#276 Mar 11, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you Khazar as well?
No.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#277 Mar 12, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
You claiming anyone as a bs'r is about as rank and rile as it gets. You are one of the biggest bullshitters on here and I've nailed you on a few occasions. Shall I provide the details?
Shhhhhhh, the adults are talking.......

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#278 Mar 12, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
You claiming anyone as a bs'r is about as rank and rile as it gets. You are one of the biggest bullshitters on here and I've nailed you on a few occasions. Shall I provide the details?
Please do because I don't believe that for a second.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#280 Mar 12, 2013
Elmers Fudd wrote:
<quoted text>
Military service, a lie.
Parenthood, a lie.
Gender, a lie.
Hair color, a lie.
Sexual identity, a lie.
H`A`A`A`A`A`A`A`A`A
Fail.

Try again. This time tell the truth.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#281 Mar 12, 2013
Elmers Fudd wrote:
<quoted text>
Military service, a lie.
Parenthood, a lie.
Gender, a lie.
Hair color, a lie.
Sexual identity, a lie.
H`A`A`A`A`A`A`A`A`A
Not making sense, there.

Since: Apr 08

Cleveland, OH

#282 Mar 13, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Not making sense, there.
I think he was confessing to us about his own dirty little secrets.

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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 11 min carter county res... 24,130
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 22 min Just Think 5,029
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 29 min Respect71 44,234
News DeGeneres says her show is no place for anti-ga... 1 hr Father Jeremy 384
News Kylie Minogue and husband Joshua Sasse refuse t... 5 hr Rosa_Winkel 2
News Idaho man charged with federal hate crime in fa... 7 hr Rosa_Winkel 2
News Secret Service chief praises gay spies for putt... 8 hr Anita Bryant s Jihad 2
More from around the web