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.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#32 Mar 5, 2013
Oh, the link to the standing brief is in the part of the article linked to this thread if anyone wants to dig deeper.

It states the Supreme Court does not have juridiction over this case, because the government isn't disagreeing with the outcome, and there is no open question for it to consider.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#33 Mar 5, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Oh, the link to the standing brief is in the part of the article linked to this thread if anyone wants to dig deeper.
It states the Supreme Court does not have juridiction over this case, because the government isn't disagreeing with the outcome, and there is no open question for it to consider.
That may be a good argument. Obviously the Solicitor General, a member of the executive branch of government, has standing before SCOTUS. But can Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, defend a law, which they obviously passed, and teh POTUS signed into law, represent themselves before SCOTUS and defend a law if the executive branch refuses to do so ? If the legislative branch and teh executive branch ARE EQUAL according tou our system of government, I would say, yes, congress can defend te law, thus they have standing.

Can anyone here cite a case where congress defended a law before SCOTUS when the executive branch refused to do so ?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#34 Mar 6, 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.
There is a vlog on YouTube of a gay couple who have adopted, they have two children now, one is mentally challenged. I have not seen such truly happy children in reality until I saw that vlog. I cry with joy whenever I see a video they upload, it's amazing how much love is possible in such a family.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#35 Mar 6, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Henry T Ford
Duh......my name is tony and I am full of boloney cus I support phony fings like gay marriage. I have no understanding of the function of a dollar or the fact that america goes 'further' into debt because of the preposterous idea of buggery in a dress.
Duh..........
Screw you. I'm gay and I'm married, and you have to live with that whether you like it or not.

Next.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#36 Mar 6, 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??
Or worse: kids of divorced parents who constantly fight in front of them, use them as pawns, try to turn them against each other, keep one away from the other, etc.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#37 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a vlog on YouTube of a gay couple who have adopted, they have two children now, one is mentally challenged. I have not seen such truly happy children in reality until I saw that vlog. I cry with joy whenever I see a video they upload, it's amazing how much love is possible in such a family.
and you don't link it here because ....

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#38 Mar 6, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
and you don't link it here because ....
Considering some of the nasty trolls on here, it would not be proper for me to do that. The dads let the kids read the comments on that channel, and the nasty mouths I see on here do not need to be encouraged to post their garbage on it. If you're an activist or part of the gay community, you will have the pleasure, hopefully, of an invite from them.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#39 Mar 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yep, I'd say the standing issue is the easiest out for the SCOTUS to overturn Prop 8 without affecting any other states; it also prevents setting a precedent of allowing any Tom Dick or Harry to defend state laws/amendments in federal court.

I still think the most important issue in the DOMA case will be establishing the appropriate standard of review. That will have more effect going forward than anything else the court can do with DOMA.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#40 Mar 6, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Well you CAN, but it's a mess they're likely to avoid.

I just don't see a logical reason to do any kind of partial overturn on DOMA; it would just make things MORE complicated instead of less. And overturning section 3 of DOMA outright won't have the same type of impact as overturning state bans.

I think even most anti-gays are secretly resigned to losing DOMA.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#41 Mar 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Oh, the link to the standing brief is in the part of the article linked to this thread if anyone wants to dig deeper.
It states the Supreme Court does not have juridiction over this case, because the government isn't disagreeing with the outcome, and there is no open question for it to consider.
It's certainly an "out" the SCOTUS could take, but I just don't think it really gets them anything. Any delay in federal recognition in other circuits would extremely temporary because every lower court would simply use the SCOTUS ruling as precedent to make a summary judgment in favor of any married same-sex couple.

Doesn't seem worth the effort.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#42 Mar 6, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be a good argument. Obviously the Solicitor General, a member of the executive branch of government, has standing before SCOTUS. But can Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, defend a law, which they obviously passed, and teh POTUS signed into law, represent themselves before SCOTUS and defend a law if the executive branch refuses to do so ? If the legislative branch and teh executive branch ARE EQUAL according tou our system of government, I would say, yes, congress can defend te law, thus they have standing.
Can anyone here cite a case where congress defended a law before SCOTUS when the executive branch refused to do so ?
For some reason I do recall that happening, but I can't find a link to it anywhere now.

Previous precedent might help, but in the end the current SCOTUS obviously can do what they want.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#43 Mar 6, 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.
But in upholding Prop 8 under any circumstances, wouldn't they simply be saying that it's okay under our constitution for a simple majority to vote away the civil rights of a minority?

I realize they can do and have done far more insane things, but wouldn't such a ruling unleash an open season on any and all rights for any minority? Could people start voting away religious rights from religious groups they don't like? I can easily see that happening in some parts of the country. If the 9th and 14th amendments can be ignored to carve out a minority group for civil persecution, why not ignore the 1st amendment, too?

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#44 Mar 6, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
Or worse: kids of divorced parents who constantly fight in front of them, use them as pawns, try to turn them against each other, keep one away from the other, etc.
Oh, yeah!! All that is perfectly fine in their minds because it's HETEROSEXUAL people abusing and torturing the children. So no problem, really. That's just how life is sometimes.

Mom can bring in as many new daddies (i.e. boyfriend of the moment) as she wants and that's okay because at least she's *trying* to get a man in her kids' lives. Okay, so he beats her and the kids, too, but at least she's not a Lesbian, God forbid!!

But let a loving, caring gay couple give a good home to a child in need, and the end of humanity is nigh!

The other thing that's always totally creeped me out about the people that declare children must be raised in the presence of one adult penis and one adult vagina at all times is what the hell are they thinking about that the gender of their parents matters??? What kind of relationship are they having with their parents where the genitals of the parent is important??

SERIOUSLY creepy!!!

As far as I knew growing up, both my parents we asexual parent-bots. Their respective genders was totally immaterial to me. My mother taught me how to sew and split firewood and my dad taught me how to fix a Volkswagen engine and program computers, but had it been the other way around, it would have made no difference at all.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#45 Mar 6, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
But in upholding Prop 8 under any circumstances, wouldn't they simply be saying that it's okay under our constitution for a simple majority to vote away the civil rights of a minority?
I realize they can do and have done far more insane things, but wouldn't such a ruling unleash an open season on any and all rights for any minority? Could people start voting away religious rights from religious groups they don't like? I can easily see that happening in some parts of the country. If the 9th and 14th amendments can be ignored to carve out a minority group for civil persecution, why not ignore the 1st amendment, too?
They could say race & religion are specifically protected in the constitution (they are), while sexual orientation is not (it's not). I agree it would be right up their with the rulings upholding segregation, but courts do stupid things at times.

I still think the most likely outcome is Prop 8 overturned but limited to just California, but I see the reasoning of the "8 state compromise" as well as the possibility of a deal for additional votes to overturn DOMA in return for upholding Prop 8.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#46 Mar 6, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be a good argument. Obviously the Solicitor General, a member of the executive branch of government, has standing before SCOTUS. But can Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, defend a law, which they obviously passed, and teh POTUS signed into law, represent themselves before SCOTUS and defend a law if the executive branch refuses to do so ? If the legislative branch and teh executive branch ARE EQUAL according tou our system of government, I would say, yes, congress can defend te law, thus they have standing.
Can anyone here cite a case where congress defended a law before SCOTUS when the executive branch refused to do so ?
Can't remember if the brief answers your question though it does address it. But the brief points out it is not congress but only one party from one house of congress that is claiming injury.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#47 Mar 6, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
It's certainly an "out" the SCOTUS could take, but I just don't think it really gets them anything. Any delay in federal recognition in other circuits would extremely temporary because every lower court would simply use the SCOTUS ruling as precedent to make a summary judgment in favor of any married same-sex couple.
Doesn't seem worth the effort.
I agree, yet your previous point that they don't want to set a precedent that allows standing for anyone who thinks they have been harmed simply by having their prejudice challenged, is a valid one, and may be why they are devoting time and resources toward addressing it. I suspect the standing issue may be more important to them than letting the lower courts work through the process of declaring it unconstitutional in each circuit.

But only time will tell...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#48 Mar 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Can't remember if the brief answers your question though it does address it. But the brief points out it is not congress but only one party from one house of congress that is claiming injury.
Well, obviously SCOTUS can do what they wnat with these cases regardless of precedent. We'll know in about 100 days.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#50 Mar 6, 2013
LOL!!! I don't usually respond to such obvious trolling but, it's a slow day....
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
Assault or verbal abuse among so called gays is at a high rate.
Really?? Higher than among so called straights? How high is "high"? 2%? 28%? 95%?? Got any sources or are you just free-associating your irrational prejudices again.
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>Placing children in such an environment ensures at least one thing and that is the natural concept and entire process of how they got here is turned against itself.
WTH does that even mean?? "Turned against itself"? Huh??
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
How many gay men do you think wish to raise a girl and how many lesbians wish to raise a boy? Why?
I have no idea. Perhaps you could enlighten us. Sources??
Francisco dAnconia

Montpelier, VT

#51 Mar 6, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, yet your previous point that they don't want to set a precedent that allows standing for anyone who thinks they have been harmed simply by having their prejudice challenged, is a valid one, and may be why they are devoting time and resources toward addressing it. I suspect the standing issue may be more important to them than letting the lower courts work through the process of declaring it unconstitutional in each circuit.
But only time will tell...
the standing issue is the knuckle ball here....
having just used it to resolve the surveillance case, the court may be sharpening its nails right now...

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

#53 Mar 6, 2013
Water of Love wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave up providing links on topix. For some reason on numerous occasions my pc's go haywire. Since I've stopped posting links here my problems are solved. Well, not all.
Turned against itself is the entire concept of how any human being is brought into this world. It is only 'natural' to imagine or wonder the how and the why. Two men take such virtues and smash it against the wall.
There is nothing enlightening of what you are doing and you must rely entirely on the failures and frailties of others for your nuclear family. Instead of promoting and championing such virtues you relish and revere in the many obvious failures America actually is.
Shalom.
Oh troll of many names -- LGBT parents rarely ever have the hang-up about providing accurate sex education to their kids. Our kids probably know more about what it takes to produce a baby (including "nontraditional" methods including surrogates, adoption, etc.) and what it takes to have a happy family than some kids with hetero parents.

If you're against poor standards of education for kids perhaps you should be lurking on other threads related to that.

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 Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 3 min Belle Sexton 33,250
News Ireland same-sex marriage 5 min -This And That- 284
News Gay couples exchange vows in Montana after ruling (Nov '14) 8 min NYC KISS ARMY 168
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 11 min tongangodz 3,821
News British author J.K. Rowling laid down the law o... 12 min Belle Sexton 10
News Science magazine retracts study on voters' gay-... 15 min Belle Sexton 9
Would You Like Two Punch NE Jade in the Nose? 19 min Rutledge 1
Are the mods fair and balanced? 3 hr DebraE 860
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 hr Terra Firma 21,735
News Lawmakers Consider Gay Discrimination Policies 5 hr Carmine 4,609
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 6 hr NorCal Native 5,693
More from around the web