Discussion for article #229909
Wouldnât have wanted this ruling to come out a week ago, would we have? Would have motivated left-wing voters. Suspicious timing much?
4 Likes
Leave it to states and the âdemocratic process,â theyâre saying â in other words, if the majority of people in your state think youâre lower than pond scum, they have a perfect right to pass laws that deny you the rights guaranteed to more popular citizens. And you have the ârightâ to take it, or just move out of the state that doesnât want you there anyhow.
5 Likes
Gosh, youâre not suggesting these judges have personal views affecting their judicial decisions, are you? Horrors! Such things donât happen in America, do they?
2 Likes
The FederaL AppeaLS court and THE IPHone WONât BE saTISFIEd UNTiL theY aLL TURN US GAY!!1!1!!one!!1!!!
3 Likes
Iâm not surprised, but I suspect that now it goes to the US Supreme Court, which will pretty much rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
2 Likes
I wish I had your confidence.
3 Likes
As the dissent so eloquently put it the majority opinion never addressed the actual Constitutional question of equal protection under the law. This ruling is a cop out of the first order (i.e., âwho are we to decide that state voters are wrong?â)
Everyday, I pry for the continued good health of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
2 Likes
this is turning into a segment they might call âDueling Judges.â
check you spellingâŚ
Back in 2009 when Olson and Boies first proposed to sue over Prop 8, I stated that they were going to win for several reasons including the fact that they were making a largely Conservative argument. I remember getting attacked for that by numerous people only to finally be able to say âI told you soâ.
The big reason why I knew they would win is the voting spread. I knew that we couldnât count on Scalia and Thomas as both had voted ânoâ in Lawrence v. Texas. I counted on Ginsberg and Breyer voting âyesâ and Kennedy a likely âyesâ. This left Alito, Roberts, Kagen and Sotomayor as unknowns. Only two of them would need to vote âyesâ for Prop 8 to go down. This seemed likely with Kagen and Sotomayor, but could have gone differently with Alito and Roberts voting to overturn the amendment.
I was correct, though wrong about Kennedy and Sotomayor. Roberts, Kagen and Alito voted âyesâ joining Ginsberg and Breyer.
However, my analysis was correct on Windsor v. US which saw Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagen, Breyer and Ginsberg vote to overturn part of DOMA. Kennedy is likely to be swayed by the fact that there are numerous states who have same-sex marriage and the fact that the federal government recognizes them. That does not mean that he will agree that there is a Constitutional right to marriage, but he will likely say that those bans are unconstitutional because they typically block recognition of a contract entered into in another state.
1 Like
Once again proving that the both parties are the same line is complete and utter bull.
1 Like
Jesus H ChristâŚWhy canât they just leave these people the fuck alone???
Theyâre all just a bunch of hate mongering fucking idiotsâŚ
2 Likes
Yeah, donât bother to vote, dembulbs, because your personal issue hasnât been at the forefront of a campaign.
Republicans have single-issue voters who turn out in every election. Guess we have them who donât.
Selfish and short-sighted. Just as stupid.
2 Likes
Right, and Al Gore would have invaded Iraq.
Circuit split; only the Supremes can resolve the issue. But Iâd have to say the appellate court here applied the wrong standard for an equal protection/fundamental right issue. They should have applied strict scrutiny under which the law is normally struck down, but they applied only rational basis analysis which is improper in matters of family integrity.
True. The thing is that we have four justices who are likely not to want to apply the strict scrutiny standard; however, Justice Kennedy likely is since I believe thatâs what Windsor v US hinged on.
Hey, itâs just a simple fact that in America, weâre not all created equal. We do not all have equal rights. We do not all have the same legal opportunities and protections that are enshrined in our over-glorified constitution. The Constitution is a living document, and the majority has the freedom to make changes on any whim as they see fit. The Constitution is, essentially, an irrelevant document. It only says what we want it to say when we need it to read how we want it to read. We control our constitution, and we can decide and control who it applies to. Some Americans have more rights than others. If youâre different from us, you donât have the same rights because we interprit the Constitution in a way that supports our ideology that youâre inferior, not a real American, and thus youâre not deserving of the same rights we have. Itâs not that we hate you, or anything, but being gay is just repulsive to us. It makes us afraid that we might succumb to those same temptations, so we rely on the rule of law to protect us from our own,deep, dark urges. Plus, being pious helps us win elections, thus perpetuating our control over who is afforded constitutional rights.