David Boies Predicts Supreme Court Wi...

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

There are 19 comments on the www.ontopmag.com story from Nov 11, 2012, titled David Boies Predicts Supreme Court Will Overturn Gay Marriage Ban Prop. 8 . In it, www.ontopmag.com reports that:

“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.”

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.ontopmag.com.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#1 Nov 11, 2012
David Boies is a GREAT lawyer, a very smart man, and I hope, and believe he is RIGHT !
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#2 Nov 11, 2012
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

#3 Nov 11, 2012
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

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Nov 11, 2012
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

#5 Nov 11, 2012
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

#6 Nov 11, 2012
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

Coolidge, AZ

#7 Nov 11, 2012
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

#8 Nov 11, 2012
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

#9 Nov 11, 2012
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

Coolidge, AZ

#10 Nov 11, 2012
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

Coolidge, AZ

#11 Nov 11, 2012
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

#12 Nov 11, 2012
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

#13 Nov 11, 2012
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

Coolidge, AZ

#14 Nov 11, 2012
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

#15 Nov 11, 2012
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

#16 Nov 11, 2012
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

#17 Nov 11, 2012
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

#18 Nov 12, 2012
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

Coolidge, AZ

#19 Nov 12, 2012
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:

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 Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 5 min Wondering 21,952
News Judge proposes Oregon bakery pay $135,000 to le... 6 min Wondering 657
News Ireland same-sex marriage 8 min Le Jimbo 471
News Ireland gay marriage: Northern Ireland must now... 8 min Dr Reker s Bellhop 42
News Hillary Clinton has a new position on same-sex ... 10 min Le Jimbo 394
News Rare Under 40 poll: This is what young people t... 16 min Dr Reker s Bellhop 37
News Support for Caitlyn Jenner is loud, but compani... 16 min Cujo 19
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 39 min Poof1 5,807
News Why I'll be voting 'No' to same-sex marriage, e... 53 min Wondering 2,720
News Rick Santorum Will Fight The Supreme Court If I... 5 hr Poof1 114
More from around the web