5 Constitutional Misconceptions About...

5 Constitutional Misconceptions About Same-Sex Marriage

There are 152 comments on the www.huffingtonpost.com story from Dec 21, 2012, titled 5 Constitutional Misconceptions About Same-Sex Marriage. In it, www.huffingtonpost.com reports that:

Just when liberals had begun to appreciate the virtues of federalism in the efforts to secure the right to same-sex marriage in states where the courts, legislatures and voters are most hospitable to it, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear an appeal from the Ninth Circuit's decision that held that California's Proposition 8 -- defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman -- violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

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

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#122 Dec 24, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you missed apparently this part of the passage from that website, on another page which I PROVIDED a link to.
"Outside of Europe, same-sex marriages are being recognized in Canada, Argentina, South Africa and several states of the USA (New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and the District of Columbia). In general, the situation is changeable and, in fact, changing, since other countries are discussing or preparing the legal recognition of same-sex marriages as well."
<quoted text>
No, I don't. I know it won't.
But you provided the "tradition" argument against civil marriage for same-sex couples. Such an argument requires that one provide evidence of harm that is caused by a tradition or practice being changed.
There is no evidence, here or in Europe.
Sorry but the link I provided went to the site. The site has multiple pages and in fact a link to the one you quoted from was in the article I linked.
I made no such argument. I stated a fact that the reason for the reluctance is tradition. I made no argument that it was a legitimate argument simply that it is the primary reason people are fighting it. It is you that has tried to twist what I posted. Society s you like to keep refering to, likes tradition and dislikes change. In order to gain acceptance you need more than a decree from Government you need society to accept it.
Currently the states that have legalized gay marriage are a good example of the change in society and their views. Other states are looking toward those states and the people are gradually changing thier opinions. This is what will eventually lead to a full acceptance, not some law passed by a legislature pressured into making a decision.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#123 Dec 24, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not hiding anywhere.
If you are soo sure that the Government is doing something illegal then why are you wasting your time on this thread? Why are you n ot arguing in front of the SCOTUS?
Fortunately, there are very experienced people handling that for me right now.
UR BS wrote:
You are the one hiding. You make all these lofty claims about legal and illegal and cry on this thread. Well if you are soo sure then do something about it!
How do you know that I don't? You have no idea what work or financial support that I've given on behalf of marriage equality. And I don't have to justify it to you to support my argument.

I can make a clear affirmative argument which you can't answer. You can't make an affirmative argument, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.
UR BS wrote:
So I guess it is not above your paygrade? Then why haven't you changed it yet. By the way there obama your picture doesn't really look like you.
What is that supposed to mean? More ad hominem. Have you lost your grip that you have to refer to my avatar?
UR BS wrote:
Now cry somemore, play the victim and call names it is aftyer all in your nature.
Feel free to show anywhere in this entire thread that I have claimed to be a victim, or even used that word.

It's just another of your straw man arguments.

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#124 Dec 24, 2012
Realized Dragon wrote:
UR BS: Do you know what I find the most fascinating in this entire thread? I find it very telling that not one of the alleged liberal, open-minded people in this discussion will even countenance the ideas that both you an d I have proposed. Rather than actually looking at the idea, they are hell-bent on proving we are wrong. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I asked whether or not this fight was about equal rights or the word? Every poster here, yourself excluded, has more or less proven that it is more about the word than the right and protections we are fighting for. That is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of both sides.
Anti-equal rights = we don't hate/it isn't religious
Pro-equal rights = no other option, even if it grants everything they allegedly desire, is acceptable.
I guess knee-jerk and pomposity are they hallmarks of the modern crusader. Too bad. Mayhaps you should all read Gandhi or Emma Goldman. They both explore the ideas surrounding opposition requiring two sides and the idea of wining through disengagement.
Agreed.
Regardless of what they say to the contrary the loudest ones I see screaming against civil unions are the from the gay marriage proponents. They blame the churches but in fact are easily just as against it as any church.
They do not want 2 sides it must be their side only. They refuse to see real life.
I have no problem whatsoever with gay unions but I do understand that calling it marriage is a hot button topic and causes very emotional responses.
I agree with you that it is all about the word not about the substance.

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#125 Dec 24, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately, there are very experienced people handling that for me right now.
<quoted text>
How do you know that I don't? You have no idea what work or financial support that I've given on behalf of marriage equality. And I don't have to justify it to you to support my argument.
I can make a clear affirmative argument which you can't answer. You can't make an affirmative argument, so you resort to ad hominem attacks.
<quoted text>
What is that supposed to mean? More ad hominem. Have you lost your grip that you have to refer to my avatar?
<quoted text>
Feel free to show anywhere in this entire thread that I have claimed to be a victim, or even used that word.
It's just another of your straw man arguments.
Yeah right exatly who have you hired to argue in front of the SCOTUS?
What affirmative argument can you make? No more than any argument I have made.
There is no attack at all with the exception of from your side.
You said that I was a coward because I said it was Above my Paygrade. Well if I am a coward for admiting that then either you are a coward as well or it is not above your paygrade which would make you obama or a SCOTUS justice. So which is it?
You don't need to use the word. Your responses show your victim mentality.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#126 Dec 24, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
...I made no such argument. I stated a fact that the reason for the reluctance is tradition. I made no argument that it was a legitimate argument simply that it is the primary reason people are fighting it. It is you that has tried to twist what I posted.
I asked if there was a legitimate governmental reason to deny civil marriage for same-sex couples.

You offered the "tradition" argument as one that is advanced by some people. Apparently, it's the best one you could think of.

OK, you apparently don't buy that argument as legitimate.(I say apparently because you don't really make serious affirmative arguments of your own, only parrot those of other people.) Neither do I.
UR BS wrote:
Society s you like to keep refering to, likes tradition and dislikes change. In order to gain acceptance you need more than a decree from Government you need society to accept it.
You keep stating this, and I keep refuting it by specific example.

Repeating your error doesn't make it less of an error.

You DON'T need "societal approval" for laws to be changed. You need to change the law or the court has to interpret the law accordingly.

That's what happened with interracial marriage bans. Most Americans didn't support interracial marriage until 1991, but most states got rid of them and the Court ruled it constitutional in 1967, 24 years before polls indicated general societal support.
UR BS wrote:
Currently the states that have legalized gay marriage are a good example of the change in society and their views. Other states are looking toward those states and the people are gradually changing thier opinions. This is what will eventually lead to a full acceptance, not some law passed by a legislature pressured into making a decision.
Changing the law or properly interpreting existing law will lead to civil marriage for same-sex couples.

We don't need to obtain the majority's approval to insist on obtaining our right to the equal protection of the law.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#127 Dec 24, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah right exatly who have you hired to argue in front of the SCOTUS?
The American Foundation for Equal Rights, to which I am a proud contributor, has engaged the formidable team of Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to argue before the Supreme Court on behalf of same-sex couples in California.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-su...

They represent the plaintiffs and all couples similarly situated in the State of California.
UR BS wrote:
What affirmative argument can you make? No more than any argument I have made.
The affirmative argument:

Same-sex couples should be entitled to the equal protections of the law and the right to obtain a civil marriage in all states. Restrictions solely based on sex are subject to heightened scrutiny under constitutional review, and the restrictions on same-sex couples in civil marriage are solely based on the sex of the partners.

There.
UR BS wrote:
There is no attack at all with the exception of from your side.
You said that I was a coward because I said it was Above my Paygrade. Well if I am a coward for admiting that then either you are a coward as well or it is not above your paygrade which would make you obama or a SCOTUS justice. So which is it?
You don't need to use the word. Your responses show your victim mentality.
I said that you are a coward for not making your position on the actual issue clear.

I stand by that, since you STILL haven't stated your opinion on civil marriage for same-sex couples.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#128 Dec 24, 2012
UR BS wrote:
Yeah right exatly who have you hired to argue in front of the SCOTUS?
You obviously don't understand our judicial system. People just don't hire a lawyer and file a law suit with the supreme court. You first make your case in a federal district court. Then appeal to a district appeals court of three judges, then maybe appeal to 11 judges at the appeals level. Only then will the supreme court even consider your case. But they only take 75-80 cases a year out of the thousands sent to them.

The supremes have decided to take the appeals to the Defense of Marriage law and an appeal in the California Prop 8 case. Arguments will be heard in the spring with an opinion made by 30 June 2013.

Posting on a thread like this is helping to make the case for same-sex civil marriage equality. To engage our fellow citizens and encourage them to rethink their position on this (or any) issue is part of changing what society thinks.

I do find it strange that a German has entered this debate especially where this thread specifically deals with the U.s. Constitution, not just an esoteric discussion of LGBT issues. We argue about what the Constitution means and it contains relatively few clauses. I would never presume to argue points found in your legal documents.

A personal inquiry. What's up with the up-side-down U.S. flag?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#129 Dec 24, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously don't understand our judicial system. People just don't hire a lawyer and file a law suit with the supreme court. You first make your case in a federal district court. Then appeal to a district appeals court of three judges, then maybe appeal to 11 judges at the appeals level. Only then will the supreme court even consider your case. But they only take 75-80 cases a year out of the thousands sent to them.
The supremes have decided to take the appeals to the Defense of Marriage law and an appeal in the California Prop 8 case. Arguments will be heard in the spring with an opinion made by 30 June 2013.
Posting on a thread like this is helping to make the case for same-sex civil marriage equality. To engage our fellow citizens and encourage them to rethink their position on this (or any) issue is part of changing what society thinks.
I do find it strange that a German has entered this debate especially where this thread specifically deals with the U.s. Constitution, not just an esoteric discussion of LGBT issues. We argue about what the Constitution means and it contains relatively few clauses. I would never presume to argue points found in your legal documents.
A personal inquiry. What's up with the up-side-down U.S. flag?
I don't assume that he's a German citizen or even in Germany simply because his IP notation shows up from there.

“Equality for ALL”

Since: Jul 10

Massachusetts

#130 Dec 24, 2012
Jerald wrote:
I don't assume that he's a German citizen or even in Germany simply because his IP notation shows up from there.
True, but that is the only info we have. Kaiserslautern is home to a large U.S. military presence so they could be stationed there. But until BS says otherwise...

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#131 Dec 24, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked if there was a legitimate governmental reason to deny civil marriage for same-sex couples.
You offered the "tradition" argument as one that is advanced by some people. Apparently, it's the best one you could think of.
OK, you apparently don't buy that argument as legitimate.(I say apparently because you don't really make serious affirmative arguments of your own, only parrot those of other people.) Neither do I.
<quoted text>
You keep stating this, and I keep refuting it by specific example.
Repeating your error doesn't make it less of an error.
You DON'T need "societal approval" for laws to be changed. You need to change the law or the court has to interpret the law accordingly.
That's what happened with interracial marriage bans. Most Americans didn't support interracial marriage until 1991, but most states got rid of them and the Court ruled it constitutional in 1967, 24 years before polls indicated general societal support.
<quoted text>
Changing the law or properly interpreting existing law will lead to civil marriage for same-sex couples.
We don't need to obtain the majority's approval to insist on obtaining our right to the equal protection of the law.
You still fail to grasp even the most basic principals.
I never said that a majority must approve anything. That is a fabrication on your part.
Now I will again attempt to explain it so that even you may understand.
You can pass all the laws you want. You make anything you like legal. That will not make it accepted. You can be married if you like and even pay the marriage penalty on taxes but that does not translate to everything being accepted by the majority of the people.
Look back at the civil right issues. The Feds passed many laws that didn't help the individual much until the attitudes of the people changed. That is my point! Pass whatever law you like the society still has the final say on if it will change its attitude toward the issue.

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#132 Dec 24, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
The American Foundation for Equal Rights, to which I am a proud contributor, has engaged the formidable team of Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to argue before the Supreme Court on behalf of same-sex couples in California.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-su...
They represent the plaintiffs and all couples similarly situated in the State of California.
<quoted text>
The affirmative argument:
Same-sex couples should be entitled to the equal protections of the law and the right to obtain a civil marriage in all states. Restrictions solely based on sex are subject to heightened scrutiny under constitutional review, and the restrictions on same-sex couples in civil marriage are solely based on the sex of the partners.
There.
<quoted text>
I said that you are a coward for not making your position on the actual issue clear.
I stand by that, since you STILL haven't stated your opinion on civil marriage for same-sex couples.
So you are a member of a group whoopee! I belong to many groups but that doesn't mean I can call other people names and present myself as some kind of crusader for whatever they do.
I asked what YOU have done! Not what group you sent your membership dues in to.
Their legal argument is their legal argument not yours unless you admit to not thinking for yourself.
I stand by my statemenmt that you are a coward and even more so now that I realize that you are hiding behind someone elses skirt tails, and claiming to be better than anyone.
I stated my opinion on the issue. You are just unable to understand it because it does not agree with yours.
My opinion is I have none! It does not effect me, I have no dog in this fight. Do you now understand? I don't care if you marry your boyfriend, your girlfriend, both, your dog or some other species. It does not effect me!
Whay can you people not understand that some of us do not give a rats backside about it?
What I do care about is the vitrol that is spewed by people on both sides of the issue. I care about the fighting and the name calling and the in your face crap that I see. That is what I care about and contrary to what you may believe no amount of laws is going to cahange that until society itself changes.

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#133 Dec 24, 2012
DaveinMass wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously don't understand our judicial system. People just don't hire a lawyer and file a law suit with the supreme court. You first make your case in a federal district court. Then appeal to a district appeals court of three judges, then maybe appeal to 11 judges at the appeals level. Only then will the supreme court even consider your case. But they only take 75-80 cases a year out of the thousands sent to them.
The supremes have decided to take the appeals to the Defense of Marriage law and an appeal in the California Prop 8 case. Arguments will be heard in the spring with an opinion made by 30 June 2013.
Posting on a thread like this is helping to make the case for same-sex civil marriage equality. To engage our fellow citizens and encourage them to rethink their position on this (or any) issue is part of changing what society thinks.
I do find it strange that a German has entered this debate especially where this thread specifically deals with the U.s. Constitution, not just an esoteric discussion of LGBT issues. We argue about what the Constitution means and it contains relatively few clauses. I would never presume to argue points found in your legal documents.
A personal inquiry. What's up with the up-side-down U.S. flag?
I understand my judicial system very well. I was using hyperbole after he loward to the position of personal attacks when he didn't get the response he was looking for. He can't handle the truth.
These forums do not educate anyone in my opinion. Any meaningfull discussion quickly degenerates into name calling and personal attacks on those that choose for whatever reason to not take the PC position.
I am in Germany temporarily and unlike the other poster that calls me a coward I do not hide where I am from.
As to the flag it is a sign of distress. With the current regime in Washington our country is in dire distress, but that is a subject for another thread.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#134 Dec 24, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
You still fail to grasp even the most basic principals.
I think you mean basic "principles".
UR BS wrote:
I never said that a majority must approve anything. That is a fabrication on your part.
Now I will again attempt to explain it so that even you may understand.
You can pass all the laws you want. You make anything you like legal. That will not make it accepted. You can be married if you like and even pay the marriage penalty on taxes but that does not translate to everything being accepted by the majority of the people.
I don't care if the majority "accepts" it or not. And neither does the Constitution. The law is intended to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority in a constitutional republic with specific guarantees of equal protections of the law.
UR BS wrote:
Look back at the civil right issues. The Feds passed many laws that didn't help the individual much until the attitudes of the people changed. That is my point! Pass whatever law you like the society still has the final say on if it will change its attitude toward the issue.
You've got your history ass-backwards.

Attitudes were a long time in changing, but for many Americans they wouldn't have changed without the force of legal authority and the expenditure of executive power first.

Should the Supreme Court have ruled against Brown v Board of Education because "the attitudes of the people" hadn't changed in 1954? Should President Eisenhower have refused to place federal troops in Little Rock Central High School to desegregate it in 1957 because the "attitudes of the people" hadn't changed?

Do you honestly think Martin Luther King was marching merely to change the attitudes of the people, and waiting for a later more convenient time to have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed?

Perhaps you should read his Letter from Birmingham City Jail, which he later turned into a book entitled "Why We Can't Wait."

The philosophy behind it is the same and it's why we can't wait.

The equal protections of the law should not be held hostage to the tyranny of the majority bent on denying equal rights for no legitimate reason.

"The greatest stumbling block" is the moderate who "who constantly says 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direst action' who paternistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises... to wait until a "more convenient season."

King worked for a change in the law BEFORE trying to change the majority of attitudes because he knew the Constitution supported equality even if the majority didn't.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#135 Dec 24, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
...I stated my opinion on the issue....My opinion is I have none!
And you call ME a coward? What a brave man you are to stick your neck out so far. Of course, you haven't a neck to stick out.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#136 Dec 24, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand my judicial system very well. I was using hyperbole after he loward to the position of personal attacks when he didn't get the response he was looking for. He can't handle the truth.
These forums do not educate anyone in my opinion. Any meaningfull discussion quickly degenerates into name calling and personal attacks on those that choose for whatever reason to not take the PC position.
I am in Germany temporarily and unlike the other poster that calls me a coward I do not hide where I am from.
As to the flag it is a sign of distress. With the current regime in Washington our country is in dire distress, but that is a subject for another thread.
You are a coward. You come onto a thread and make all sorts of ridiculous claims and offer nonsensical and irrational arguments -- and all for what?

You don't have an opinion on the topic of the thread.

You're the worst kind of gutless.

At least other anti-gays say so up front. You pretend not to care.

Why are you here?

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#137 Dec 24, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you mean basic "principles".
<quoted text>
I don't care if the majority "accepts" it or not. And neither does the Constitution. The law is intended to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority in a constitutional republic with specific guarantees of equal protections of the law.
<quoted text>
You've got your history ass-backwards.
Attitudes were a long time in changing, but for many Americans they wouldn't have changed without the force of legal authority and the expenditure of executive power first.
Should the Supreme Court have ruled against Brown v Board of Education because "the attitudes of the people" hadn't changed in 1954? Should President Eisenhower have refused to place federal troops in Little Rock Central High School to desegregate it in 1957 because the "attitudes of the people" hadn't changed?
Do you honestly think Martin Luther King was marching merely to change the attitudes of the people, and waiting for a later more convenient time to have the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed?
Perhaps you should read his Letter from Birmingham City Jail, which he later turned into a book entitled "Why We Can't Wait."
The philosophy behind it is the same and it's why we can't wait.
The equal protections of the law should not be held hostage to the tyranny of the majority bent on denying equal rights for no legitimate reason.
"The greatest stumbling block" is the moderate who "who constantly says 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direst action' who paternistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises... to wait until a "more convenient season."
King worked for a change in the law BEFORE trying to change the majority of attitudes because he knew the Constitution supported equality even if the majority didn't.
Thank you for confirming what I have all along known about you. You are the typical libtard. I was waiting for the spelling police to poke its ugly head up and you have done it.
I know you don't care you have made that ubundantly clear. You do not care what the results are as long as you get your way!
No I do not have history bassackwards you do. Not to mention that your inability to comprehend jas come to light again.
Now I will type slow so maybe you can get it.
NO LAW will change the attitude of the people. If your concept were true then there would instantly have been an end to all racisn after the laws were passed. Sorry youngster but that didn't happen. It will also not happen in this case. You may be allowed to get married and all that but that will not mean that you will be accepted as married by anyone other than your own group.
I pity you for being soo naive as to think that passing a law fixes everything.

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#138 Dec 24, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a coward. You come onto a thread and make all sorts of ridiculous claims and offer nonsensical and irrational arguments -- and all for what?
You don't have an opinion on the topic of the thread.
You're the worst kind of gutless.
At least other anti-gays say so up front. You pretend not to care.
Why are you here?
OH GEE what happend did I hurt the little boys feelings by not having my entire life revolve around his issues?
If at anytime you would like to discuss who is a coward facew to face I do not hide my location so I can hide behind the computer. I will be returning to El Paso Texas shortly so let me know punk!
You are the gutless little boy not me. You come on here crying about all this crap and then because you are a member of some group you claim to be fighting for equal rights! What a croc!
I come on here to show you the foolish position you have and how dishonest you are in your dealings with others. You can't handle it you get all bent out of shape and rant and rave on que. Now go tell someone how the mean okd man has picked on you and made you cry.

Since: Feb 12

Germany

#139 Dec 24, 2012
Jerald wrote:
<quoted text>
And you call ME a coward? What a brave man you are to stick your neck out so far. Of course, you haven't a neck to stick out.
At least my neck is not buried inside my rear as yours is with your head.

What's the matter can't handle that your little issue is not top priority on everyones list?
You are a joke.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#140 Dec 24, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>...NO LAW will change the attitude of the people...
Go back and read what I wrote, moron. I never claimed that changing any law would change attitudes by itself.

The law needs to be changed whenever it denies equal protection.

If that comes before a change in societal attitudes (which is not infrequently the case in controversial matters -- that's what makes them controversial, after all), then so be it.

If societal attitudes changed first, well, there really wouldn't be much of a fuss, would there?

If some in society already supported civil marriage for same-sex couples, then we probably wouldn't be arguing about it.

But the fact remains that a sizable number of people aren't comfortable with the concept. Too bad. The discomfort of one group of citizens shouldn't be a legitimate reason to deny the equal protections of the law to another group of citizens.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#141 Dec 24, 2012
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
OH GEE what happend did I hurt the little boys feelings by not having my entire life revolve around his issues?
If at anytime you would like to discuss who is a coward facew to face I do not hide my location so I can hide behind the computer. I will be returning to El Paso Texas shortly so let me know punk!
You are the gutless little boy not me. You come on here crying about all this crap and then because you are a member of some group you claim to be fighting for equal rights! What a croc!
I come on here to show you the foolish position you have and how dishonest you are in your dealings with others. You can't handle it you get all bent out of shape and rant and rave on que. Now go tell someone how the mean okd man has picked on you and made you cry.
LOL. Who's "bent out of shape"?

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.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Court: Women can't be paid less than men based ... Apr 13 guyol 11
News Fight over Trump sanctuary order heads to appea... Apr 11 Critical Eye 10
News Court sides with Marvin Gaye family in 'Blurred... Mar 22 stop industry crooks 3
News US government can be sued by children over clim... Mar '18 Reason 1
News U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump over 'Dreamers... Feb '18 spud 2
News Idaho can keep data on animals tracked illegall... Feb '18 Birdzilla 3
News ICE chief: 9th Circuit partly to blame for rise... Feb '18 Wildchild 2