High court sets Prop. 8, DOMA hearings

Jan 7, 2013 Full story: www.sfgate.com 48

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday scheduled a March 26 hearing on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California's ban on same-sex marriage.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
SirAndrew

Honolulu, HI

#1 Jan 7, 2013
At last. I have a very good feeling about this whole thing. DOMA is clearly unconstitutional, as even Republicans were saying when they passed it. Marriage inequality is also unconstitutional, but the arguments will be a bit tougher since the old idiot, Scalia, and his lapdog, Thomas, will be doing everything they can do, including issuing threats and attempts at blackmail over the secrets of the other justices, to keep marriage equality from happening.

Thomas wil ignore the fact that this very same inequality, pushed and supported by the church and conservatives, would have kept him from marrying his white wife in half the states as recently as 1967 (Loving v Virginia).

Still, I think the Chief Justice will eventually come down on our side. I predict 6-2 on DOMA (with Sotomayor recused) and 6-3 on marriage, though possibly tightly drawn to just California. Still, the Court has indicated that it may rule on a broader basis than the original question, just as they did in Citizens United.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#2 Jan 7, 2013
SirAndrew wrote:
At last. I have a very good feeling about this whole thing. DOMA is clearly unconstitutional, as even Republicans were saying when they passed it. Marriage inequality is also unconstitutional, but the arguments will be a bit tougher since the old idiot, Scalia, and his lapdog, Thomas, will be doing everything they can do, including issuing threats and attempts at blackmail over the secrets of the other justices, to keep marriage equality from happening.
Thomas wil ignore the fact that this very same inequality, pushed and supported by the church and conservatives, would have kept him from marrying his white wife in half the states as recently as 1967 (Loving v Virginia).
Still, I think the Chief Justice will eventually come down on our side. I predict 6-2 on DOMA (with Sotomayor recused) and 6-3 on marriage, though possibly tightly drawn to just California. Still, the Court has indicated that it may rule on a broader basis than the original question, just as they did in Citizens United.
I've heard nothing about Sotomayor recusing herself on the DOMA case. Where is that coming from?

Since: Jul 09

Indy/Philly/Toronto

#3 Jan 7, 2013
Amazing that the SCOUS has to vote on whether or not to deny rights to American citizens because of religious beliefs.
Only in America.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Jan 7, 2013
mark in Toronto wrote:
Amazing that the SCOUS has to vote on whether or not to deny rights to American citizens because of religious beliefs.
Only in America.
Then stay in Canada.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#5 Jan 7, 2013
mark in Toronto wrote:
Amazing that the SCOUS has to vote on whether or not to deny rights to American citizens because of religious beliefs.
Only in America.
And btw, although people who live in Puerto Rico are American citizens, they have NO RIGHT to vote for POTUS, VEEP, U.S. senators, nor U.S. representatives. And THAT'S the way they like it !

:)

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#6 Jan 7, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
Then stay in Canada.
He's SUPPORTING gays, you ungrateful IDIOT. What the freak is wrong with you?

Just because you are too vile to attract anything, doesn't mean the rest of us have hung up our 6 guns, you dolt. Yes, we know all about your celibacy, "celibacy", more like too heinous to be believed.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#7 Jan 7, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
And btw, although people who live in Puerto Rico are American citizens, they have NO RIGHT to vote for POTUS, VEEP, U.S. senators, nor U.S. representatives. And THAT'S the way they like it !
:)
So what? What the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING being discussed, you blithering fool?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#8 Jan 8, 2013
"High Court" = STATE Supreme Courts

The SCOTUS is just the SCOTUS.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#9 Jan 8, 2013
The top Court in any judicial food chain, be it state, federal or foreign, is generally referred to as the "High Court".

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#10 Jan 8, 2013
snyper wrote:
"High Court" = STATE Supreme Courts
The SCOTUS is just the SCOTUS.
Who actually writes these headlines for Topix? I notice that the Chronicle did not use it as it appears on Topix.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#11 Jan 8, 2013
RalphB wrote:
Who actually writes these headlines for Topix? I notice that the Chronicle did not use it as it appears on Topix.
It's the headline that came from the Topix news feed link I used. Not sure how or why it does it, but sometimes it changes the headlines from the original. I hadn't even noticed the switch when I posted it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Jan 8, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>It's the headline that came from the Topix news feed link I used. Not sure how or why it does it, but sometimes it changes the headlines from the original. I hadn't even noticed the switch when I posted it.
Don't sweat it, we got the jist.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#13 Jan 8, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>It's the headline that came from the Topix news feed link I used. Not sure how or why it does it, but sometimes it changes the headlines from the original. I hadn't even noticed the switch when I posted it.
I've seen headlines with the most idiotic non related descriptions below many times. It is out of control.
straight shooter

Montpelier, VT

#14 Jan 8, 2013
as the top court in the federal system, the scotus is the federal "high court"...But most often it is used for states like NY where the high court is the superior and the trial court is Supreme to avoid confusion....

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#15 Jan 8, 2013
Curteese wrote:
I've seen headlines with the most idiotic non related descriptions below many times. It is out of control.
I do have to admit that I think it's cute what this site does to headlines from the Free Republic, makes 'em look like they were typed by chimps.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#16 Jan 8, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The top Court in any judicial food chain, be it state, federal or foreign, is generally referred to as the "High Court".
Nope. THat's just sloppy usage manuals.

Like "penultimate", "High" faces a "Higher" and "Highest" in the ascending High-erarchy.

"Supreme" is just that. There is no "Supreme-r" nor "Supreme-st".

I wish that people would think gooderer.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#17 Jan 8, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. THat's just sloppy usage manuals.
Like "penultimate", "High" faces a "Higher" and "Highest" in the ascending High-erarchy.
"Supreme" is just that. There is no "Supreme-r" nor "Supreme-st".
I wish that people would think gooderer.
And in some states, the highest court in the state is not called the "Supreme Court". For example, in The State Of New York, the "Supreme Courts" are mid-level courts and the highest court in the state is called the "Court Of Appeals". Some other states name their courts in a similar manner.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#18 Jan 8, 2013
Cal In AZ wrote:
<quoted text>
And in some states, the highest court in the state is not called the "Supreme Court". For example, in The State Of New York, the "Supreme Courts" are mid-level courts and the highest court in the state is called the "Court Of Appeals". Some other states name their courts in a similar manner.
I always thought that usage of "Supreme" by State Courts to be presumptious.

Since: Oct 12

Coolidge, AZ

#19 Jan 8, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
I always thought that usage of "Supreme" by State Courts to be presumptious.
No, it's not. Remember that many of the "Supreme Court"s of the various states were established LONG BEFORE the Supreme Court Of The United States.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#20 Jan 8, 2013
snyper wrote:
Nope. THat's just sloppy usage manuals.
Like "penultimate", "High" faces a "Higher" and "Highest" in the ascending High-erarchy.
"Supreme" is just that. There is no "Supreme-r" nor "Supreme-st".
I wish that people would think gooderer.
If that is what you want to believe, knock yourself out, but whether you like it or not, many sources do refer to the SCOTUS as the high court, not just this one.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
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
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 2 min Frankie Rizzo 3,351
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 2 min lides 3,875
Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions 2 min Jonah1 1,146
White House: US increasingly backing gay marriage 3 min Jonathan 71
Christian right key to Republican performance i... 4 min Fa-Foxy 71
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 14 min barry 1,997
Poll: Economy, health care eclipse social issues 37 min Lerone Jones 3
Puerto Rico judge upholds gay marriage ban 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 89
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 10 hr Just Saying 56,777

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE