Supreme Court Could Do A Lot Of Fancy Foot Work With Prop 8, DOMA Rulings

Mar 26, 2013 Full story: lezgetreal.com 31
(Analysis) The United States Supreme Court seems likely to strike down both Prop 8 and DOMA, but not issue any kind of broad decision on marriage rights. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Mar 26, 2013
I bet they dismiss teh case on teh standing issue.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#2 Mar 26, 2013
And if they DO dismiss teh case on the standing issue, that keeps teh ruling as narrow as possible as only Cali would be affected, and not the marriage laws of any other state. So that may be exactly what they want to do. And it may very well be the correct, legally sound decsion to make, no matter where you stand on the issue.

And such a ruling based solely on standing would NOT preclude another similar case in teh near future, instead of waiting 17 years as we did in Bowers.
Olson Boies lost badly

Justice, IL

#3 Mar 26, 2013
The flaw (I'm being nice) in your argument here and elsewhere is that you don't know what plenary power is. Only the Supreme Court has it.

They don't do fancy footwork. That was someone else.

In short, you lost badly today. The Supreme Court can do whatever they please. Boies and Olson lied to you, just as the Supreme Court bar is accused of doing.

They wanted the notoriety and didn't care--at least not foremost--if they won or lost today.

And to answer your other question from elsewhere: the Supreme Court isn't giving you any decision until months from now.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Mar 26, 2013
Olson Boies lost badly wrote:
The flaw (I'm being nice) in your argument here and elsewhere is that you don't know what plenary power is. Only the Supreme Court has it.
They don't do fancy footwork. That was someone else.
In short, you lost badly today. The Supreme Court can do whatever they please. Boies and Olson lied to you, just as the Supreme Court bar is accused of doing.
They wanted the notoriety and didn't care--at least not foremost--if they won or lost today.
And to answer your other question from elsewhere: the Supreme Court isn't giving you any decision until months from now.
They most probably will say that the Pro-Prop 8 people don't have standing. Therfore, gay marriage will once again become legal in Cali, and your side loses (badly).
Scalia Philosopher-King

Justice, IL

#5 Mar 26, 2013
No, Skippy. Do the math.

They sold you a bill of goods for 50 states.

You're now hoping you got 1.

And I'm forever free to say what I want.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

#6 Mar 26, 2013
Olson Boies lost badly wrote:
The flaw (I'm being nice) in your argument here and elsewhere is that you don't know what plenary power is. Only the Supreme Court has it.
They don't do fancy footwork. That was someone else.
In short, you lost badly today. The Supreme Court can do whatever they please. Boies and Olson lied to you, just as the Supreme Court bar is accused of doing.
They wanted the notoriety and didn't care--at least not foremost--if they won or lost today.
And to answer your other question from elsewhere: the Supreme Court isn't giving you any decision until months from now.
Nice try at being reasonable, but actually I am well aware of the plenary powers. In fact, I would say that you are the one who does not understand the concept.

Yes, the only group of people who can overturn the US Supreme Court are 1) the US Supreme Court or 2) the Congress and People through a Constitutional Amendment.

That's all plenary powers means. It means that, for all intents and purposes, the buck stops with them.

The rest of your argument is an attempt to bullshit your way through sounding like you won.

In order for our side to lose at all, it would require that Kennedy and Roberts side with Alito, Thomas and Scalia, which is not very likely. Odds on are Alito, Thomas and Scalia vote to uphold Prop 8; Bader-Ginsberg, Kagen, Sotomayor and Breyer will vote to overturn; and Roberts and Kennedy will vote that the anti-gay groups have no standing. This would mean a hung Court and the 9th's decision would be the final ruling.

You really need to go back and learn basic civics.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

#7 Mar 26, 2013
Scalia Philosopher-King wrote:
No, Skippy. Do the math.
They sold you a bill of goods for 50 states.
You're now hoping you got 1.
And I'm forever free to say what I want.
No, they didn't. You might really want to stop sniffing that glue and read up on what really goes on.

Any victory for us is a loss for you guys. You really should learn that bit.

BTW, you didn't read my analysis. I can tell. I addressed all of that in there. Then again, my writing is probably a bit too advanced for you.
Scalia Baby Scalia

Justice, IL

#8 Mar 26, 2013
Yeah, I didn't read it.

a) You're not a lawyer

b) I can't tell if you're a man or woman--I think we need a separate Supreme Court ruling for you

Plenary means the Supreme Court has full power to effect justice. Standing is only an issue if they want it to be.

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

#9 Mar 26, 2013
Scalia Baby Scalia wrote:
Yeah, I didn't read it.
a) You're not a lawyer
b) I can't tell if you're a man or woman--I think we need a separate Supreme Court ruling for you
Plenary means the Supreme Court has full power to effect justice. Standing is only an issue if they want it to be.
Um, not quite. Actually, the Constitution is quite clear on this- and it's something that Scalia brought up in the hearing. The Constitution lays out who has standing in all the court cases.

Oh, and no, I'm not a lawyer. I just grew up around them. I am an historian, though, and quite competent at reading up on things. And, no, plenary powers does not mean that the Supreme Court is only affected by standing if they choose to be. It means that they are the final authority (barring a few things), and even they cannot ignore the Constitution.

Oh, and I am female...I was also born intersexed, so, I find your attempt at demeaning me to be rather ineffectual. Then again, I expect that from someone who hasn't read the Constitution or understand anything regarding the law.

Sorry, but it seems like you guys lose again- and could lose big time. Just because of how the questions went does not necessarily indicate how the ruling will go.
1 is not 50

Justice, IL

#10 Mar 26, 2013
If the standing issue is so clear, why did the 8 best Justices (and Clarence) take the issue, Mister?

I mean, Ma'am?

Sei

Since: Nov 08

Rutland, VT

#11 Mar 26, 2013
1 is not 50 wrote:
If the standing issue is so clear, why did the 8 best Justices (and Clarence) take the issue, Mister?
I mean, Ma'am?
Because the standing issue is not as clear cut as it seems; however...yawn...you're boring me. I think I'll go take a nap. Wake me when you actually have something to say worth actually responding to.

I expect a very long dragon length nap.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#12 Mar 26, 2013
Scalia Philosopher-King wrote:
No, Skippy. Do the math.
They sold you a bill of goods for 50 states.
You're now hoping you got 1.
And I'm forever free to say what I want.
Well then our next legal crusade is exemption and refund for all the tax money we've wasted on 1,138 benefits we have been denied over the last 3/4 century
.
I'll be standing in my driveway watching the IRS's armored cars dump humongous piles of Obamadollars in my driveway
http://www.aiga.org/archivedmedia/modest-prop...
.
;o))

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#13 Mar 26, 2013
Olson Boies lost badly wrote:
The flaw (I'm being nice) in your argument here and elsewhere is that you don't know what plenary power is. Only the Supreme Court has it.
They don't do fancy footwork. That was someone else.
In short, you lost badly today. The Supreme Court can do whatever they please. Boies and Olson lied to you, just as the Supreme Court bar is accused of doing.
They wanted the notoriety and didn't care--at least not foremost--if they won or lost today.
And to answer your other question from elsewhere: the Supreme Court isn't giving you any decision until months from now.
Actually, Justice Kennedy stated many times today that he wondered why the Court took the case and even hinted at a possible dismissal!!!

Olson and Boies didn't lose badly, but they did fail to deliver a more powerful argument that would have tossed Prop 8 on the merits......instead it will probably be dismissed on the Standing issue!!!

“SCOTUS will Rule in June for”

Since: Aug 08

MARRIAGE EQUALITY:-)

#14 Mar 26, 2013
1 is not 50 wrote:
If the standing issue is so clear, why did the 8 best Justices (and Clarence) take the issue, Mister?
I mean, Ma'am?
The Conservative Justices took the case......thinking they would slap the 9th......instead, it looks like a dismissal might take place!!!
Mr Precedent

Justice, IL

#15 Mar 26, 2013
Dragon nap?

How big are you?

Olson and Boies took you. You can't get your money back.
Go Scalia Go

Justice, IL

#16 Mar 26, 2013
Again, here's what you were promised:

Walker: "It's going to be SPECTACULAR!"

Boies: "Loving."

Olson: "Kennedy Strategy."

You can't get the legal fees back.
Go Scalia Go

Justice, IL

#17 Mar 26, 2013
Also, you're presuming.

Best-case scenario: You got 1 instead of 50.

Worst-case scenario: You lose everything.

You're in jeopardy now--the Supreme Court has plenary power--thanks to Boies and Olson.

LMFAO
We won We won We won

Tempe, AZ

#18 Mar 26, 2013
You seem to think the Republicans on the Supreme Court brought the suit.

Actually, believe it or not, it was an incognito homosexual on his last legs paying exorbitant sums to Olson and Boies.

If the Supreme Court didn't hear the case, there'd have been homosexual marriage in CA dragon naps ago.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#20 Mar 26, 2013
1 is not 50 wrote:
If the standing issue is so clear, why did the 8 best Justices (and Clarence) take the issue, Mister?
I mean, Ma'am?
Because the 4 Republican justices thought they could get Kennedy's vote to uphold Prop 8.

Not taking the case would have resulted in the lower court ruling which overturned Prop 8 to stand.

Either way, they lost.

Prop 8 will be overturned.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21 Mar 26, 2013
Go Scalia Go wrote:
Again, here's what you were promised:
Walker: "It's going to be SPECTACULAR!"
Boies: "Loving."
Olson: "Kennedy Strategy."
You can't get the legal fees back.
Didn't cost me a penny, and we get California back in the gay marrige column instead!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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 Jeb Bush 'evolving' on same-sex marriage and... 55 min xxxrayted 215
Alabama Supreme Court halts gay-marriage licenses 1 hr Beauty QUEEN 5
Fake Hate: Ohio Gay Rights Activists Faked His ... 1 hr Beauty QUEEN 3
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Brian_G 15,796
Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 1 hr Brian_G 1,132
I'm gay. And I want my kid to be gay, too 1 hr Brian_G 148
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 1 hr Just Think 57,946
Biggest Gay Lies (May '14) 3 hr dduttonnc 3,233
More from around the web