Prop 8 Going To The Supreme Court

Jun 5, 2012 | Posted by: Sei | Full story: lezgetreal.com

It is official, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to take up the Prop 8 case.A This means that it is going straight to the Supreme Court.A The case will be argued by two men familiar to the Supreme Court- former Solicitor General Ted Olsen and his former Bush v. Gore opponent David Boies.A Olsen is a Conservative who has argued the ... (more)

Comments (Page 16)

Showing posts 301 - 313 of313
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Fitz

Roseville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#302
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a lawyer......but the 9th wrote they're opinion with Justice Kennedy in mind. My guess is because they knew that if SCOTUS took the appeal.....the argument would be towards Kennedy being the swing vote.
As I have learned over the last 4 years......Judges will do their best to avoid intensely hot social issues like the right to marry for Gays and Lesbians......as they did before Loving came to them. The Justices also knew that by making their ruling narrowly confined to California, that they were doing 2 things.....one getting rid of Prop 8 and side stepping the larger question.
You are entitled to disagree with me all ya want....but there are lawyers who certainly disagree with you......and just because you state your an attorney......doesn't mean you are.......just saying that I can make bold claims as well.....it still won't matter to others.
Thats the right answer.... so two points for you... But you need to remember that narrowly writing an opinion like you observe to cater to a single justice (Kennedy wrote the Romer decision on which it rellys) is a dangerous way to go.

They look like what your doing is what your doing...trying to avoid a direct appeal on the merits and still get rid of prop 8 all while avoiding the substantial question on the merits and confine the ruling just to California top avoid political backlash..

Its called gaming the system...its transparent & for the Justices to go along makes them look complicit in a strategey that is essentially waiting until they feel a better political climate in generated.

People resent being "shinned on" and openly manipulated like this..

And you need to remember it was Kennedy who said that "nothing in Lawrence justifies same-sex "marriage"...yet every court has used it that way...

The conservatives have a solid 4 & the Cheif Supreme Court Justice (who asigns who's going to write the opinion)-

All sorts of law proffesors dont accpect what people on this blog do... They believe the courts will role this case into the DOMA cases and give a more difinitive judgment than you might expect.

The 4 conservatives have enough power to do things like rule DOMA unconsitutional and ergo force a nationwide confrontation...

With all the gamesmanship on the left here to fore watch for the unexpected.... you run real risks when you guys took on such an aggresive strategy without the consent of SCOTUS, and then try and pull back at the last minute....peopel dont like to be seen as being openly manipulated like that...
Fitz

Roseville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#303
Jun 14, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Translation: you aren't able to refute anything I said (again), so you changed names in order to pretend to be ganging up on me.
<quoted text>Translation: I'm going to pretend I'm now something I'm not in a pathetic attempt to intimidate you.
If you are one of those people who is an "actual attorney", I'm the King of Sweden.
<quoted text>Because the SCOTUS is not ready for such a case yet. This way California's amendment gets killed without having to deal with any of the others, yet.
<quoted text>You'd be more convincing if you knew how to spell circuit. Thanks for playing, but you and your imaginary friends have been dismissed.
Your the King of Sweden and the answer is Kennedy because he wrote the Romer decsion on wich the 9th predicated its narrow ruling.

“"Deemed Unconstitutional "”

Since: Jun 09

San Jose Ca.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#304
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

5

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Your the King of Sweden and the answer is Kennedy because he wrote the Romer decsion on wich the 9th predicated its narrow ruling.
Yes and you're the Kunnt of Pekin Illinois! Seen the wife or kids lately? How about a telephone pole? Geez,you can't do anything right now can you DaDavid?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#305
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
You pulled that all out of your A(ss)..I bet you cant link or even point me to a single blog or article that says any of that absolte and complete conjecture...
Some of us on these blogs are actually attorneys and know enough not to just start making things up.
Now why do you expect that Perry was drawn so narrowly??? Why would the 9th curcuit try and throw a case that wouldent have a national effect?
And - how about this (just to test to see if you know anything) WHO was the 9th curcuit opinion written for? and Why?
The instructions to Federal Judges from the SCOTUS is the hear and decide cases as narrowly as possible.

I don't think that you are one of the attorneys you mention. You would know this.
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#306
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>You really should pay attention to what you claim to be reading, because I already explained it to you moron and I didn't need "traditional marriage" to do so. If a state were to set a limit of say three spouses per person, there is no rational basis, let alone a compelling interest served by denying those who want four, five, six, all the way up to every legally eligible person. Get it now?
yes, you are using slippery slope BS...I get it...
slippery slope arguments like this are bigotry if used on gay marriage and simple logic as to polygamy...I get it for sure!

second, you are that bright that you should be so angry and spouting insults like that!
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#307
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Buttercup, the Baker case is not relevant to the claims of the plaintiffs in Perry (their right to marry exists under California's Constitution and they are not directly arguing a federally recognized right to marry)), both the trial court decision and the appeal made that clear. You really should limit your discussions to subjects where you can at least fake having a clue, this ain't it.
did walker announce a federal right to marry?

Did the 9th write it out of the decision to avoid SCOTUS review?

now your almost caught up...kicking and swearing the whole way...
Reality

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#308
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

7

7

7

RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>

Besides.....if Baker was truly precedent as claimed.....then Walker would have had to throw the complaint out before the trial ever began.
yes, he should have, so the 9th did it for him...how can you not get that?

As I claim?

The first circuit bears no weight with you?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#309
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats the right answer.... so two points for you... But you need to remember that narrowly writing an opinion like you observe to cater to a single justice (Kennedy wrote the Romer decision on which it rellys) is a dangerous way to go.
They look like what your doing is what your doing...trying to avoid a direct appeal on the merits and still get rid of prop 8 all while avoiding the substantial question on the merits and confine the ruling just to California top avoid political backlash..
Its called gaming the system...its transparent & for the Justices to go along makes them look complicit in a strategey that is essentially waiting until they feel a better political climate in generated.
People resent being "shinned on" and openly manipulated like this..
And you need to remember it was Kennedy who said that "nothing in Lawrence justifies same-sex "marriage"...yet every court has used it that way...
The conservatives have a solid 4 & the Cheif Supreme Court Justice (who asigns who's going to write the opinion)-
All sorts of law proffesors dont accpect what people on this blog do... They believe the courts will role this case into the DOMA cases and give a more difinitive judgment than you might expect.
The 4 conservatives have enough power to do things like rule DOMA unconsitutional and ergo force a nationwide confrontation...
With all the gamesmanship on the left here to fore watch for the unexpected.... you run real risks when you guys took on such an aggresive strategy without the consent of SCOTUS, and then try and pull back at the last minute....peopel dont like to be seen as being openly manipulated like that...
Look, you don't have ANY more of an idea on what SCOTUS will do or why......and it has always been that this case could go to SCOTUS, but more than likely it won't go......and I don't see how the Perry case would be rolled into a DOMA case.......different issues.

Go ahead with your opinion......but there are lawyers who disagree with your position and if this case does go to SCOTUS, I have more faith in Olson and Boies than I would in Cooper.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#310
Jun 15, 2012
 

Judged:

7

6

6

Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
yes, he should have, so the 9th did it for him...how can you not get that?
As I claim?
The first circuit bears no weight with you?
I don't see where the 9th did it for him......and they still made a ruling on Prop 8.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#311
Jun 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

See, that is what disturbs me.

I scanned some of what is printed above, and I saw something I see COMMONLY from an antigay person: the "threat" of a national confrontation or a very, very bad outcome if the supreme court "dares" to rule in favor of gay rights.

I'll be damn blunt: I keep saying that the pro-gay have no Plan B, and quite bluntly, I would at least be satisfied if they were speaking *LIKE THE ANTIGAY DO*-- and saying that if the court dares to rule *AGAINST* them, there will be hell to pay.

And I'm not seeing that.

I wrote once, here (and got flak for it) that the antigay *LOOK* much more committed to their fight because they are so hell-bent in their determination that if anyone "dares" to cross them, they will fight like rabid dogs. I want to see the pro-gay with the same attitude. I think I would trust them more if I saw it. I don't care what anyone *thinks of* the attitude; I base this upon the philosophy that when a rapist is wielding a knife and trying to stab you to death, you do not sit there negotiating calmly. You fight for your life.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#312
Jun 16, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

hi hi wrote:
See, that is what disturbs me.
I scanned some of what is printed above, and I saw something I see COMMONLY from an antigay person: the "threat" of a national confrontation or a very, very bad outcome if the supreme court "dares" to rule in favor of gay rights.
I'll be damn blunt: I keep saying that the pro-gay have no Plan B, and quite bluntly, I would at least be satisfied if they were speaking *LIKE THE ANTIGAY DO*-- and saying that if the court dares to rule *AGAINST* them, there will be hell to pay.
And I'm not seeing that.
I wrote once, here (and got flak for it) that the antigay *LOOK* much more committed to their fight because they are so hell-bent in their determination that if anyone "dares" to cross them, they will fight like rabid dogs. I want to see the pro-gay with the same attitude. I think I would trust them more if I saw it. I don't care what anyone *thinks of* the attitude; I base this upon the philosophy that when a rapist is wielding a knife and trying to stab you to death, you do not sit there negotiating calmly. You fight for your life.
Discipline and a good heart.

“Trolls are Clueless”

Since: Dec 07

Aptos, California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#313
Jun 16, 2012
 
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>
I am only pointing out that the ramifications of gay marriage seem to be cast as bigotry and a denial of equality, so I am interested to hear how you find the same is not true of polygamy.
So gay marriage wouldn't be a new opportunity to fraud for those who could not find an opposite sex partner in crime?
sure it would.
That's your opinion. I find it rather pointless.
hi hi

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#314
Jun 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Discipline and a good heart.
This is a good response.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 301 - 313 of313
|
next page >
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••