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

#107 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I say DOMA is dead on state's rights.
Wiki to be unbiased....
"Kennedy has joined with Court majorities in decisions favoring states' rights and invalidating federal and state affirmative action programs. He ruled with the majority on Equal Protection grounds in the controversial 2000 Bush v. Gore case that halted continuing recounts in the 2000 presidential election and ended the legal challenge to the election of President George Bush."
AND I'd say the Prop 8 Case came 20 years early and will be set 40 years back by Prop 8. In an effort to support state's rights, an dtherefore his view of "liberty" (the right of a peoples to determine for themselves what is "marriage")Kennedy will join certain parts of the decision that will say:
"Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
and
"Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring), "
again a state's rights issue is staring them in the face with a duly passed state constitutional amendment...
my two pesos...
Prop 8 didn't preserve anything. It took away the right of same sex couples to marry. Period.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#108 Mar 7, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
thanks
no problemo
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#109 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Prop 8 didn't preserve anything. It took away the right of same sex couples to marry. Period.
Breathe?
hot air is a good name for you...
period.(ha!)

I merely said prop 8, as a state enacted amendment, is clearly a state's rights issue...

wtf are YOU babbling about?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#110 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
Breathe?
hot air is a good name for you...
period.(ha!)
I merely said prop 8, as a state enacted amendment, is clearly a state's rights issue...
wtf are YOU babbling about?
So would it be constitutional to allow people in Cali to vote on a proposition that took way the right of Non-Christians to marry one another ?
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#111 Mar 7, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
So would it be constitutional to allow people in Cali to vote on a proposition that took way the right of Non-Christians to marry one another ?
If you could show that Christians are not similarly situated to folks we already allow to marry...

do you have any?
Do you have any as good as the fundamental differences between the genders?

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#113 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
If you could show that Christians are not similarly situated to folks we already allow to marry...
do you have any?
Do you have any as good as the fundamental differences between the genders?
We live in a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy. "Majority Rule" is nowhere mention in the U.S. Constitution, and having said that, people do NOT have a RIGHT to strip other citizens of their Constitutional RIGHTS by majority vote. This is one of teh chief reasons the U.S. Constitution was written in teh first place, i.e. to PREVENT a "tyranny of the majority" from abusing other citizens, by denying them their RIGHTS, by a simple majority vote.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#114 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
Breathe?
hot air is a good name for you...
period.(ha!)
I merely said prop 8, as a state enacted amendment, is clearly a state's rights issue...
wtf are YOU babbling about?
I'm responding to your babbling quotes. States are NOT free to allow a vote to take rights away from its citizens.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#115 Mar 7, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
We live in a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy. "Majority Rule" is nowhere mention in the U.S. Constitution, and having said that, people do NOT have a RIGHT to strip other citizens of their Constitutional RIGHTS by majority vote. This is one of teh chief reasons the U.S. Constitution was written in teh first place, i.e. to PREVENT a "tyranny of the majority" from abusing other citizens, by denying them their RIGHTS, by a simple majority vote.
I heard a violin playing the star spangled banner here dude...

but you didn't address the topic of similarly situated AT ALL, and I know why...
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#116 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>I'm responding to your babbling quotes.
no your not doing that at all sweetheart...
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text> States are NOT free to allow a vote to take rights away from its citizens.
so a state cannot take away, say the right to vote?
reality aside as usual huh?

face it, you are too simplistic to get it...
maybe the scotus decision will explain it better.....
just kidding you will just call them bigots and ignore it as usual...
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#117 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
If you could show that Christians are not similarly situated to folks we already allow to marry...
do you have any?
Do you have any as good as the fundamental differences between the genders?
He asked about NON Christians. And what about Prop 8 affected the fundamental differences between genders?

"If you could show..." HUH? VOTE doofus. Prop 8 didn't show anything. It was a straight up or down vote.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#118 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I heard a violin playing the star spangled banner here dude...
but you didn't address the topic of similarly situated AT ALL, and I know why...
Where was the topic of "similarly situated" in the Prop 8 vote?
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#119 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
no your not doing that at all sweetheart...
<quoted text>
so a state cannot take away, say the right to vote?
reality aside as usual huh?
face it, you are too simplistic to get it...
maybe the scotus decision will explain it better.....
just kidding you will just call them bigots and ignore it as usual...
You are hilarious. Back two days, and starting with the bogus analysis and logical fallacies already. We're talking about marriage NOT A RIGHT TO VOTE!!!! Are you incapable of sticking to the subject??????

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#120 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>I'm responding to your babbling quotes. States are NOT free to allow a vote to take rights away from its citizens.
But although Utah granted women the right to vote, CONGRESS VOTED TO STRIP THAT RIGHT FROM THEM with passage of the Edmunds–Tucker Act.

I'm sure there are other examples of states and teh federal government stripping rights away as well.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#121 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Where was the topic of "similarly situated" in the Prop 8 vote?
where the SCOTUS will say it is!

As the rational basis for the different treatment.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#122 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You are hilarious. Back two days, and starting with the bogus analysis and logical fallacies already. We're talking about marriage NOT A RIGHT TO VOTE!!!! Are you incapable of sticking to the subject??????
nope, you are just too dumb to make connections, as usual.

Do states take the right to VOTE from some people?
say incarcerated felons?
so when you wrote that states cant take rights, it was, as usual, flat wrong.

or are you going to lie (also very usual) and deny you wrote that?
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#123 Mar 7, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
But although Utah granted women the right to vote, CONGRESS VOTED TO STRIP THAT RIGHT FROM THEM with passage of the Edmunds–Tucker Act.
I'm sure there are other examples of states and teh federal government stripping rights away as well.
foxy, he didn't actually MEAN it...he was just, as usual, saying anything it takes to veil his ignorance with snark...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#124 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I heard a violin playing the star spangled banner here dude...
but you didn't address the topic of similarly situated AT ALL, and I know why...
Actually, I can.

State laws banning the marriage of first cousins only appeared in the U.S. in the 20th century. Prior to that, first cousin marriage was legal in all states. Since state laws forbidding first cousin marriage are, on average, only about 100 years old, first cousins HAD THE RIGHT TO MARRY taken away from them.

About one half of the states presently forbid marriage between first cousins. However, those couples are perfectly free to travel to another state where first cousin marriage is legal, get married there, and then, if and when they decide to reside in a state where first cousin marriage is prohibited by law, their marriage is STILL LEGALLY RECOGNIZED by that state, and is in fact legally recognized by ALL STATES, their laws forbidding the marriage notwithstanding.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#125 Mar 7, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
But although Utah granted women the right to vote, CONGRESS VOTED TO STRIP THAT RIGHT FROM THEM with passage of the Edmunds–Tucker Act.
I'm sure there are other examples of states and teh federal government stripping rights away as well.
Have we learned anything in the last hundred years???????
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#127 Mar 7, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I can.
State laws banning the marriage of first cousins only appeared in the U.S. in the 20th century. Prior to that, first cousin marriage was legal in all states. Since state laws forbidding first cousin marriage are, on average, only about 100 years old, first cousins HAD THE RIGHT TO MARRY taken away from them.
About one half of the states presently forbid marriage between first cousins. However, those couples are perfectly free to travel to another state where first cousin marriage is legal, get married there, and then, if and when they decide to reside in a state where first cousin marriage is prohibited by law, their marriage is STILL LEGALLY RECOGNIZED by that state, and is in fact legally recognized by ALL STATES, their laws forbidding the marriage notwithstanding.
the topic was "similarly situated" not "comity".
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#128 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>Have we learned anything in the last hundred years???????
I dunno, but did you just learn something about states taking rights?

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 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 17 min who cares 14,571
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? 43 min Wally 421
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 50 min Frankie Rizzo 38,369
News Trump's 'Make America Great Again' target of mi... 57 min Raydot 40
Little Robbie's Happy Place 1 hr Righteous Hetero 14
News Boy Scouts faring well a year after easing ban ... 1 hr Gay Scout Master 5
Is Little Robbie safe and sound? 1 hr Little Robbie Adm... 9
News Judge to monitor Kansas' actions on gay marriag... 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 27
News NBA Moves All-Star Game Out of North Carolina O... 2 hr Mite Be 26
More from around the web