Scalia says abortion, gay rights are ...

Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases

There are 375 comments on the The Capital-Journal story from Oct 5, 2012, titled Scalia says abortion, gay rights are easy cases. In it, The Capital-Journal reports that:

In this March 8, 2012 file phoo, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Capital-Journal.

First Prev
of 19
Next Last
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#379 Oct 22, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't agree. Your error is misunderstanding what a "federal question" includes.
A federal question is one that deals with the national "law of the land".
According to Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, the law of the land is:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land..."
A federal question deals with not only the Constitution, but also federal laws and treaties.
A federal question includes the application and interpretation of federal law. DOMA defined civil marriage under federal law.
Baker was dismissed by the US Supreme Court "for want of a substantial federal question."
That rationale -- a lack of federal interest -- no longer exists. DOMA created a federal interest in civil marriage.
if a gay marriage ban implicated the US Constitution, could they find no federal question?
No!
fact is, there is no federal right to gay marriage...
so there is no federal interest in protecting one...

your analysis therefore has no bearing on Baker...
but the law of the land, is the that gay marriage is currently not protected by the US constitution..

Arguing DOMA presents a federal question because its a federal statute does not make sense...
it misunderstands what a federal question is...
Uve

Indio, CA

#380 Oct 22, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
if a gay marriage ban implicated the US Constitution, could they find no federal question?
No!
fact is, there is no federal right to gay marriage...
so there is no federal interest in protecting one...
your analysis therefore has no bearing on Baker...
but the law of the land, is the that gay marriage is currently not protected by the US constitution..
Arguing DOMA presents a federal question because its a federal statute does not make sense...
it misunderstands what a federal question is...
Jane, jane, jane...How many times do we have to converse about Baker? There wasn't even an opinion or testimony submitted in it. It's the last and only leg you have to stand on, dated from 1972. Baker WILL eventually be a thing of the past, as it should be..It has NO relevance in arguing the federal question of DOMA anymore, that's what happened in NY last week.
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#381 Oct 22, 2012
Uve wrote:
<quoted text>
Jane, jane, jane...How many times do we have to converse about Baker? There wasn't even an opinion or testimony submitted in it. It's the last and only leg you have to stand on, dated from 1972. Baker WILL eventually be a thing of the past, as it should be..It has NO relevance in arguing the federal question of DOMA anymore, that's what happened in NY last week.
nope it is the most on point precedent of the scotus...
you can ignore it, but the courts will not...

when its a thing of the past, THEN we ignore it, not before...
and yes, Baker has been cited with approval in the recent DOMA cases...
I guess they didn't find it too OLD (that one always cracks me up)...

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#382 Oct 22, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
if a gay marriage ban implicated the US Constitution, could they find no federal question?
No!
fact is, there is no federal right to gay marriage...
so there is no federal interest in protecting one...
There is a federal right to equal protection.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#383 Oct 22, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
if a gay marriage ban implicated the US Constitution, could they find no federal question?
No!
fact is, there is no federal right to gay marriage...
so there is no federal interest in protecting one...
You are clearly clueless about this entire issue, but I'll help correct another of your many errors here for the benefit of others who will read it.

There is no federal right to "gay marriage" because there is no such legal construct as "gay marriage".

The legal construct is CIVIL marriage.

The US Supreme Court has ruled in over a dozen cases that citizens have a fundamental right to marry. The only type of marriage over which the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction is civil marriage.

For government to deny a fundamental right, it requires a compelling reason to do so.

There is no compelling governmental reason in denying the right to civil marriage solely because of the gender of the partners.

You certainly haven't provided one.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>your analysis therefore has no bearing on Baker...
but the law of the land, is the that gay marriage is currently not protected by the US constitution..
Arguing DOMA presents a federal question because its a federal statute does not make sense...
it misunderstands what a federal question is...
A federal question deals with the supreme law of the land: according to the supremacy clause in Article VI, that includes the Constitution, all laws passed pursuant to the Constitution, and all treaties.

DOMA is a federal law passed pursuant to the Constitution (by both houses of Congress and signed by the president) which defines civil marriage for federal purposes.

In 1973, Baker was "dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."

In 1996, DOMA created that substantial federal question.

Baker is dead.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#384 Oct 22, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
...
and yes, Baker has been cited with approval in the recent DOMA cases...
I guess they didn't find it too OLD (that one always cracks me up)...
They sure did! You still cracked up?

Here's only the most recent of seven decisions to ignore it or rule that Baker is too old and doesn't apply, from just last week:

Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote for the court in Windsor v. United States that Baker did not control his review of equal protection arguments against DOMA because "manifold changes to the Supreme Court's equal protection jurisprudence" had occurred in the intervening 40 years and because at issue in Baker was same-sex marriage within a state while Windsor was challenging a federal statute.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110430137/Windsor-S...

Where you been?
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#385 Oct 22, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
They sure did! You still cracked up?
Here's only the most recent of seven decisions to ignore it or rule that Baker is too old and doesn't apply, from just last week:
Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote for the court in Windsor v. United States that Baker did not control his review of equal protection arguments against DOMA because "manifold changes to the Supreme Court's equal protection jurisprudence" had occurred in the intervening 40 years and because at issue in Baker was same-sex marriage within a state while Windsor was challenging a federal statute.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/110430137/Windsor-S...
Where you been?
Now you've done it. Hell hath no fury like Jane caught in another lie.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#386 Oct 22, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you've done it. Hell hath no fury like Jane caught in another lie.
Well, maybe I should fess up, then. I was wrong.

It's not SEVEN federal courts that have ruled section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional.

Friday's decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals makes it EIGHT.

Looks like I UNDERestimated Baker's lack of precedential value.

My bad.
Mona Lott

Brooklyn, NY

#387 Oct 22, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, maybe I should fess up, then. I was wrong.
It's not SEVEN federal courts that have ruled section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional.
Friday's decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals makes it EIGHT.
Looks like I UNDERestimated Baker's lack of precedential value.
My bad.
I forgive you. <hugs>

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#388 Oct 22, 2012
Scalia's words mean nothing. He is simply saying the Constitution means what he believes it means. INOWs he has a personal opinion and no real legal rationale for anything. Some judge!!!
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#389 Oct 23, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>

There is no federal right to "gay marriage" because there is no such legal construct as "gay marriage".

The US Supreme Court has ruled in over a dozen cases that citizens have a fundamental right to marry. The only type of marriage over which the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction is civil marriage.
For government to deny a fundamental right, it requires a compelling reason to do so.
There is no compelling governmental reason in denying the right to civil marriage solely because of the gender of the partners.
You certainly haven't provided one.
<quoted text>
A federal question deals with the supreme law of the land: according to the supremacy clause in Article VI, that includes the Constitution, all laws passed pursuant to the Constitution, and all treaties.
DOMA is a federal law passed pursuant to the Constitution (by both houses of Congress and signed by the president) which defines civil marriage for federal purposes.
In 1973, Baker was "dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."
In 1996, DOMA created that substantial federal question.
Baker is dead.
this has no basis in law or fact.

fallacy number one:
"There is no federal right to "gay marriage" because there is no such legal construct as "gay marriage"."

No truwe at all. Thast EXACTLY what BAker is, the case that says the 14 marriage cases DO NOT apply to gay marriage. BAker itself deflates what you are suggesting...

your seeking a federal question angle is just silly...
yes, its a federal statute so the scotus can interpret it...that's all folks...
and they will interpret it in line with their precedent. In short, they do not have to say there is a fundamental right to gay marriage to overturn DOMA and so there is NO WAY THEY WILL EVER DECLARE ONE in the DOMA cases...
And so DOMA can be resolved without impinging Baker...
Have you read any of the DOMA cases? because they all cite and follow Baker...

which makes what you wrote pure fiction.

Notice how I can write and not insult you, just address what you wrote, its easier for me since I am correct...
For example:
"In 1973, Baker was "dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."
In 1996, DOMA created that substantial federal question.
Baker is dead."
This connection is only in your head...
DOMA does not negate Baker...

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#391 Oct 23, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
this has no basis in law or fact.
fallacy number one:
"There is no federal right to "gay marriage" because there is no such legal construct as "gay marriage"."
There is a right to marriage (loving v VA), and a right to equal protection under the law.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#392 Oct 23, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
fallacy number one:
"There is no federal right to "gay marriage" because there is no such legal construct as "gay marriage"."
No truwe at all. Thast EXACTLY what BAker is, the case that says the 14 marriage cases DO NOT apply to gay marriage. BAker itself deflates what you are suggesting...
There's a legal construct called "gay marriage"?

Where, exactly? Feel free to provide evidence for this claim.

Feel free to link to the "gay marriage certificate" in any state that currently recognizes the right of same-sex couples to obtain such a thing.

I suspect you'll find it right next to the "interracial marriage certificates" and the "interfaith marriage certificates".

They aren't legal constructs, either.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>your seeking a federal question angle is just silly...
yes, its a federal statute so the scotus can interpret it...that's all folks...
It's a federal statute that defines civil marriage. Feel free to explain how a suit against a federal statute that defines civil marriage under federal law fails to address "a substantial federal question."
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>and they will interpret it in line with their precedent. In short, they do not have to say there is a fundamental right to gay marriage to overturn DOMA and so there is NO WAY THEY WILL EVER DECLARE ONE in the DOMA cases...
Because there is no such legal construct as "gay marriage," and therefore no right to "gay marriage." Please do keep up.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>And so DOMA can be resolved without impinging Baker...
Only if the one attempting to make the resolution can't read or comprehend the English language.
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>Have you read any of the DOMA cases? because they all cite and follow Baker...
which makes what you wrote pure fiction.
Notice how I can write and not insult you, just address what you wrote, its easier for me since I am correct...
For example:
"In 1973, Baker was "dismissed for want of a substantial federal question."
In 1996, DOMA created that substantial federal question.
Baker is dead."
This connection is only in your head...
DOMA does not negate Baker...
Section 3 of DOMA has been found unconstitutional in EIGHT federal courts, including last Friday's ruling by the Second Circuit that explicitly denied Baker's applicability.

What planet are you on? Where have you been? I have a pretty good guess as to where your head has been.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#393 Oct 23, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
...Have you read any of the DOMA cases? because they all cite and follow Baker...
which makes what you wrote pure fiction....
Feel free to link to and quote from the rulings of any of these DOMA cases where you claim the court ruled that Baker controls:

Gill v. Office of Personnel Management,
Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services,
Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management,
Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management,
Windsor v. United States,
in re Balas and Morales,
in re Levenson.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#394 Oct 24, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
...
Section 3 of DOMA has been found unconstitutional in EIGHT federal courts, including last Friday's ruling by the Second Circuit that explicitly denied Baker's applicability.
What planet are you on? Where have you been? I have a pretty good guess as to where your head has been.
Like so many bigots, Jane is a one trick pony. This is ALL she has, and to let it go would mean that her entire argument is in the toilet.

So she's (or he) is going to cling to it as it circles the bowl on it's way down.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 19
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
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 9 min Repub 12,962
2016 NOM DC March for Marriage FAIL 12 min Joy to the World 1
News Christine Wicker: Learning to Talk About God an... (Sep '10) 41 min True Christian w... 28
News After Orlando, some businesses stress LGBT incl... 45 min Lanny 3
News Drag queens raise holy hell in Jerusalem's only... 51 min Reggie 7
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr lides 37,248
News Gay pride stabber sentenced to life in prison 1 hr Joy to the World 1
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 2 hr Go Blue Forever 898
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 4 hr bmz 591
More from around the web