David Boies Predicts Supreme Court Will Overturn Gay Marriage Ban Prop. 8

Nov 11, 2012 | Posted by: DNF | Full story: www.ontopmag.com

“If I have to make a prediction, I would predict the court will hear our case,” Boies said. “If they take it, I think we will win.”

In comments before receiving an award from the University of San Francisco Law School's Public Interest Law Foundation on Friday, Boies said he believes the court will rule in his clients' favor by a majority greater than 5-4.

“I believe we will get more than five votes,” he said. “This is a civil rights case of the same importance as Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia.”

“I think the justices have a history of coming together and rising above their personal views to enforce the Constitution's guarantees of equality.”

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 19 of19

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

6

3

3

David Boies is a GREAT lawyer, a very smart man, and I hope, and believe he is RIGHT !
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Fa-Foxy wrote:
David Boies is a GREAT lawyer, a very smart man, and I hope, and believe he is RIGHT !
You mean you don't hate him? Really? Why not?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

So he predicts the SCOTUS will accept the Prop 8 case?

I hope he's wrong, because I don't see any way of getting 5 votes (much less 6) to declare a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples.

The only reason the SCOTUS would take the case would be to overturn the lower court ruling and allow Prop 8 to stand.

Not good.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

4

3

3

WeTheSheeple wrote:
So he predicts the SCOTUS will accept the Prop 8 case?
I hope he's wrong, because I don't see any way of getting 5 votes (much less 6) to declare a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples.
The only reason the SCOTUS would take the case would be to overturn the lower court ruling and allow Prop 8 to stand.
Not good.
IS THERE a constitutional RIGHT for str8 people to marry ? If so, where ? The rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are NOT exhaustive, and 9th Amendment, and teh 10th Amendment in the Bill Of Rights makes that clear. And if str8 people have a right to marry, then I don't see how you could contituionally justify denying that same right to LGBT people. The U.S. Constitution does NOT have a "gay exception" clause, as in: "Everything in this Constitution applies to ALL people EXCEPT gay people".

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
IS THERE a constitutional RIGHT for str8 people to marry ? If so, where ? The rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are NOT exhaustive, and 9th Amendment, and teh 10th Amendment in the Bill Of Rights makes that clear. And if str8 people have a right to marry, then I don't see how you could contituionally justify denying that same right to LGBT people. The U.S. Constitution does NOT have a "gay exception" clause, as in: "Everything in this Constitution applies to ALL people EXCEPT gay people".
While the practical discrimination appears to be against gay people, the legal discrimination is based on sex, not sexual orientation.

The fact is that gay people can marry in every state in the union. And gay COUPLES can marry in every state, too. The only restriction is that one partner is a gay male and one partner is a gay female. The legal restriction is based on sex, not sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court has ruled on over a dozen occasions that citizens have a fundamental right to marry, one that is not dependent or contingent on an ability or willingness to have children. Restrictions on fundamental rights based on sex or gender require, at minimum, a legitimate governmental reason narrowly tailored to advance that governmental interest. If procreation is not a legitimate reason to restrict the ability to obtain a civil marriage, restricting marriage because of the sex of the partners violates the fundamental right of same-sex couples to obtain a civil marriage.

There is no constitutional right to "same-sex marriage" or "gay marriage", since -- like "interracial marriage" or "interfaith marriage" -- no such legal construct exists. The constitutional right at issue is civil marriage, and same-sex couples should be able to enjoy that right just like opposite-sex couples.

I know Anthony Kennedy is capable of understanding this. Perhaps John Roberts can, too, but I'm not convinced.

Since: Apr 08

Chagrin Falls, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
IS THERE a constitutional RIGHT for str8 people to marry ? If so, where ? The rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are NOT exhaustive, and 9th Amendment, and teh 10th Amendment in the Bill Of Rights makes that clear. And if str8 people have a right to marry, then I don't see how you could contituionally justify denying that same right to LGBT people. The U.S. Constitution does NOT have a "gay exception" clause, as in: "Everything in this Constitution applies to ALL people EXCEPT gay people".
In Loving v. Virginia (1967)Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Gay And Proud wrote:
<quoted text>
In Loving v. Virginia (1967)Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...
To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
WOW ! That commie-pinko Warren was actually right about something for a change !

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
IS THERE a constitutional RIGHT for str8 people to marry ? If so, where ? The rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are NOT exhaustive, and 9th Amendment, and teh 10th Amendment in the Bill Of Rights makes that clear. And if str8 people have a right to marry, then I don't see how you could contituionally justify denying that same right to LGBT people. The U.S. Constitution does NOT have a "gay exception" clause, as in: "Everything in this Constitution applies to ALL people EXCEPT gay people".
Ask your hero Scalia about that.

Just another reason you should be celebrating Obama's reelection. Now maybe we'll get the chance to replace Scalia with a justice who actually understands that gays are entitled to equal rights.

I don't see the current SCOTUS overturning state marriage bans.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

We all believe same-sex couples SHOULD have the right to marry, but unfortunately it's up to the 9 justices on the current SCOTUS to determine that.

They're people just like the rest of us, with their own biases & life experience which affects how they rule.

We can live in fantasy land and pretend they set aside everything and rule strictly by constitutional principles or we can live in the real world.

Face it, until the we get a solid liberal majority on the SCOUTS, we're not going to see marriage equality nationwide anytime soon.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask your hero Scalia about that.
Just another reason you should be celebrating Obama's reelection. Now maybe we'll get the chance to replace Scalia with a justice who actually understands that gays are entitled to equal rights.
I don't see the current SCOTUS overturning state marriage bans.
I'm not saying that they should overturn state marriage bans. But what they SHOULD DO, cuz the U.S. Constitution says so, is rule that ALL states MUST legally recognize ALL the acts of other sttes, with NO "gay marriage exception". The Full Faith and Credit clause in the U.S. Constitution REQUIRES THAT. It desn't say here are ANY exceptions, expecially for teh reason: "we just don't like that".

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

And I'm no longer correcting my "teh"'s to "the"'s ! I constantly type it incorrectly, and then go back and painstakingly correct every one ! NO MORE !

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not saying that they should overturn state marriage bans. But what they SHOULD DO, cuz the U.S. Constitution says so, is rule that ALL states MUST legally recognize ALL the acts of other sttes, with NO "gay marriage exception". The Full Faith and Credit clause in the U.S. Constitution REQUIRES THAT. It desn't say here are ANY exceptions, expecially for teh reason: "we just don't like that".
Again, ask your hero Scalia about that.

Not going to happen either.

You can wish in one hand and sh!t in the other; see which fills up first.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not saying that they should overturn state marriage bans. But what they SHOULD DO, cuz the U.S. Constitution says so, is rule that ALL states MUST legally recognize ALL the acts of other sttes, with NO "gay marriage exception". The Full Faith and Credit clause in the U.S. Constitution REQUIRES THAT. It desn't say here are ANY exceptions, expecially for teh reason: "we just don't like that".
Actually, the FFCC does have exceptions. It states:

"And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Congress is given express power to prescribe how such acts are proved and what their effects are.

And the Supreme Court has long recognized a public policy exception to the FFCC, so there's that reality that you simply can't choose to ignore. It exists.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the FFCC does have exceptions. It states:
"And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."
Congress is given express power to prescribe how such acts are proved and what their effects are.
And the Supreme Court has long recognized a public policy exception to the FFCC, so there's that reality that you simply can't choose to ignore. It exists.
The so-called "public policy exception" does not exist in teh U.S. Constitution, nor federal law. Furthermore, if you really believe in a "public policy exception", it is an invented loophole that can cover ANYTHING at all. How about not recognizing Hindu marriages ? Buddhist marriages ? marriages of tall people ?
Marriages of short people ? Marriages where teh bride didn't wear a white dress ?

And exactly WHO gets to decide what fits in the "public policy exception" and what doesn't ?

It's NONSENSE ! It's an invented fiction, and yes I realize saying that that way might be redundant, but it is.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The so-called "public policy exception" does not exist in teh U.S. Constitution, nor federal law. Furthermore, if you really believe in a "public policy exception", it is an invented loophole that can cover ANYTHING at all. How about not recognizing Hindu marriages ? Buddhist marriages ? marriages of tall people ?
Marriages of short people ? Marriages where teh bride didn't wear a white dress ?
And exactly WHO gets to decide what fits in the "public policy exception" and what doesn't ?
It's NONSENSE ! It's an invented fiction, and yes I realize saying that that way might be redundant, but it is.
I didn't say that I agreed with the claim, just that it exists, the Supreme Court recognizes it, and one cannot ignore it.

Where is the line drawn and who gets to draw it? Like most constitutional contours, the lines are drawn by the Supreme Court wherever they say they go. But those lines exist nonetheless.

Just as one cannot claim that there are no exceptions to the FFCC since the text of the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to define its effects.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fa-Foxy wrote:
And I'm no longer correcting my "teh"'s to "the"'s ! I constantly type it incorrectly, and then go back and painstakingly correct every one ! NO MORE !
Eayh! Hyw oudlw naynoe awtn ot othber?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Nov 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fa-Foxy wrote:
And I'm no longer correcting my "teh"'s to "the"'s ! I constantly type it incorrectly, and then go back and painstakingly correct every one ! NO MORE !
Take the Scots Yorkershire solution.

The Scots becomes t'Scots.

Pesky articles! They're all part of a liberal Stalinist plot. Right?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
The so-called "public policy exception" does not exist in teh U.S. Constitution, nor federal law. Furthermore, if you really believe in a "public policy exception", it is an invented loophole that can cover ANYTHING at all. How about not recognizing Hindu marriages ? Buddhist marriages ? marriages of tall people ?
Marriages of short people ? Marriages where teh bride didn't wear a white dress ?
And exactly WHO gets to decide what fits in the "public policy exception" and what doesn't ?
It's NONSENSE ! It's an invented fiction, and yes I realize saying that that way might be redundant, but it is.
Until the SCOTUS rules otherwise, the states get to decide.

Btw, have you asked your hero Scalia how he'd rule on your FFC idea?

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Take the Scots Yorkershire solution.
The Scots becomes t'Scots.
Pesky articles! They're all part of a liberal Stalinist plot. Right?
English is a Germanic language (I'm a Deutshophile), not a slavic language, so Stalin didn't have his mitts in that.(It was probably Karl Marx. HE was German !)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 19 of19
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

61 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
NC's Rep. Stam: Pedophilia could be a sexual or... 10 min Wholly Silicon Wafer 4
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 12 min Fredrick 50,248
Pride and Progress in the Holy Land 16 min Wholly Silicon Wafer 23
N. Ireland Bakery in Trouble For Refusing Bert ... 19 min Homostats 18
CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple We... (Dec '13) 20 min Frankie Rizzo 15,332
Ford stays seated for WorldPride ovation-Image1 30 min Homostats 18
Russian Lawmaker Wants to Ban 100-Ruble, Says i... 31 min Wholly Silicon Wafer 13
Gays Better Off Dead? 'Christian' Activist Says So 59 min Chance 56
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 1,725
Court favors disclosing anti-gay marriage donors 7 hr Frankie Rizzo 1,502
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••