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

#129 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
foxy, he didn't actually MEAN it...he was just, as usual, saying anything it takes to veil his ignorance with snark...
Don't speak for me, you little goofball.

The Ninth Circuit struck down Prop 8 on narrow reasoning: that once a state grants same-sex couples the right to marry, it can’t then take that right away. The only state where those circumstances are relevant is California, so the decision got the job done on as narrow grounds as possible in order to prevent being overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#130 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
The Ninth Circuit struck down Prop 8 on narrow reasoning: that once a state grants same-sex couples the right to marry, it can’t then take that right away. The only state where those circumstances are relevant is California, so the decision got the job done on as narrow grounds as possible in order to prevent being overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#131 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
nope, you are just too dumb to make connections, as usual.
Do states take the right to VOTE from some people?
Who's talking about taking away voting rights?
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#132 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't speak for me, you little goofball.
The Ninth Circuit struck down Prop 8 on narrow reasoning: that once a state grants same-sex couples the right to marry, it can’t then take that right away. The only state where those circumstances are relevant is California, so the decision got the job done on as narrow grounds as possible in order to prevent being overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court.
so what, the SCOTUS may announce a state's right to define marriage, and exclude gays.
Francisco dAnconia

Barre, VT

#133 Mar 7, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Who's talking about taking away voting rights?
not you since it makes you seem stupid for saying states don't take rights...
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#134 Mar 7, 2013
Dirty White Schlepper wrote:
<quoted text>
Do all jews like yourself truly hate Christains as some might suggest?
I don't hate christians. I hate phonies and the willfully ignorant who hide behind jesus when called into account. I hate them for their mean-spiritedness, not their religion.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#135 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
I dunno, but did you just learn something about states taking rights?
I learned that some things never change.... like your ineffectual arguments.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#136 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
not you since it makes you seem stupid for saying states don't take rights...
Except I didn't say that, YOU said I said that. It's the same ol shit with you.... strawman after strawman.

This is what I wrote, dumbass: I'm responding to your babbling quotes. States are NOT free to allow a vote to take rights away from its citizens.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#137 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
<quoted text>
so what, the SCOTUS may announce a state's right to define marriage, and exclude gays.
And $500 bills may fly out of my ass.

Prop 8 took marriage rights away from same sex couples. That's all it did. How many times does a State have the right to change its mind about rights?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#139 Mar 7, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I am getting Netflix popups also and another one that both seem to be tied to topix somehow.
You need to add NoScript to your plugins, and give TOPIX only those limited permissions necessary to perform basic functions.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#140 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...
I'm afraid that you are correct. I believe one of the Justices telegraphed that to us in Sacramento.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#141 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?
LOL! You think that's a valid reason!! LOL. Try it in court.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#142 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...
Because it's as stupid as applying it to interracial or interfaith marriages, both of which many people are against, and some think their souls depend on it.
Xavier Breath

West New York, NJ

#143 Mar 7, 2013
Dirty White Schlepper wrote:
<quoted text>
Mean spiritedness? Good one Mona.
I thought so.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#144 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...
Seriously? You don't know the difference between "your" and "you're" and you expect us to take you seriously regarding higher policy concepts - all while calling someone else simplistic?

Next.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#145 Mar 7, 2013
Francisco dAnconia wrote:
In short, you are not fully "enforcing" a law if you are not defending it in court, and not enforcing any law is a harm to every individual member of congress....
That's a stretch to say the least.

Can a policeman fully enforce a speeding law without defending the constitutionality of that law in court?

Are they guilty of not enforcing the law if they just give you a speeding ticket and send you on your way?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#146 Mar 7, 2013
Popular opinion of a majority fails to qualify as a legitimate reason for denial of equal treatment under the law to the marriages of same sex couples. While the majority can make the laws, the constitution requires equal treatment under those laws for all persons.

Same sex marriages are similarly situated to opposite sex marriages in all ways except for one. They are raising children, both biologically related or adopted, just like many straight couples. Some choose not to have children, just like straight couples. The only difference is they can't have unplanned, unwanted babies.

Fortunately, the courts are agreeing there is no rational governmental interest served by refusing to treat the marriages of same sex couples equally under the law.

"And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." (Gill)

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

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#147 Mar 7, 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."

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

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#150 Mar 7, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
"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."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...
SAVE the children !

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#151 Mar 7, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
When the moral decay of a society continues to spiral downward.
WOO-HOO !

"We're on an express elevator to Hell ! Goin Down !" (D. Hicks).

:)

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 Israeli Celebs Decry Same-Sex Adoption Ban 4 min Jones 3
The N E J A D E Show 17 min GAY TV 1
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 22 min cpeter1313 51,910
News Gay Teen Vogue editor defends mag's anal sex guide 25 min NE Jade 65
News Rhode Island becomes 10th state to ban 'ex-gay'... 27 min Jones 2
News Doritos makes rainbow chips in support of gay r... (Sep '15) 34 min neighbor 2,009
News Ancient Porn Found at Pompeii May Prove the New... 50 min betch ya 2
News Gay bar opens near Macon Road, drawing visitors... 8 hr General Zod 462
News Gay couple grilled by judge about their sex liv... 8 hr Frankie Rizzo 40
More from around the web