And Wisconsin taxpayers foot the bill for JB, our illustrious Attorney General, to challenge the most sensible rulings! $$$$$$ ca-ching
6 Likes
Dear Evangelical Bigots,
Howâs about you just admit that youâve lost this war and move on. While your ever increasingly absurd arguments give us a daily chuckle, you must know by now that we are laughing at you, not with you. Iâm sure there has got to be a lot of other ways you can try to force your narrow minded views on the nation. Time to give this one up.
Hugs & Kisses,
Americans Who Actually Understand What The Constitution Says
2 Likes
And in case you didnât hear Posner in pages 1-39, hereâs the last paragraph:
Before ending this long opinion we need to address, though only very briefly, Wisconsinâs complaint about the wording of the injunction entered by the district judge. Its lawyers claim to fear the stateâs being held in contempt because it doesnât know what measures would satisfy the injunctionâs command that all relevant state officials âtreat same-sex couples the same as different sex couples in the context of processing a marriage license or determining the rights, protections, obligations or benefits of marriage.â If the stateâs lawyers really find this command unclear, they should ask the district judge for clarification. (They should have done so already; they havenât.) Better yet, they should draw up a plan of compliance and submit it to the judge for approval.
Translation: GET. OUT.
5 Likes
[quote] ⌠that same-sex couples and their children donât need marriage because same-sex couples canât produce children, intended or unintended ⌠[/quote] From this might one be able to conclude that the two getting married, say one each male and female, would need to prove their fertility (ability to actually produce children) AND their desire AND intent to do same before being allowed to marry?
If No, then the whole âmaking babiesâ issue is moot.
Marriage is only one front in the battle for LBGT equality, of course. A key battle, but far from the only one.
This is only the beginning. DONATE MONEY to ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, and Lambda Legal.
3 Likes
Has Posner ever been canvassed about a SCOTUS nomination?
Another loss for scotty walker. Better get used to it, scotty.
I have always admired Judge Posner for his incisive logic when deciding a case. Ever when I disagree with the result, I have to admit that the logic in his decisions makes creating a counter-argument difficult.
To say that Judge Posnerâs opinion in this case is a scathing would be expressing a monstrously large understatement. Were I one of the attorneys for Indiana or Wisconsin, I would feel like I had thousands of paper-cuts over which someone was pouring lemon juice. If there is going to be an opinion that has an impact on the wingnuts on the Supreme Court, this is the opinion. To overrule and reverse this (and all the others) case would be to acknowledge that your opinion ratifies
ââŚthe only rationale that the states put forth with any convictionâthat same-sex couples and their children donât need marriage because same-sex couples canât produce children, intended or unintendedâis so full of holes that it cannot be taken seriously.â
In plain English, if you overrule this opinion you have bought seriously a logic. OUCH!
I agree. In 1997, Posner expressed opposition to any court, particularly the Supremes, overturning state bans on marriage for same-sex couples. He said public opinion had to be considered and that if a fundamental right was found he had concerns about polygamy claims.
At the same time, Posner said that he thought one day marriage for same-sex couples would happen.
Clearly, things have changed. Plus, the appeals panel ruled solely on equal protection not due process, which gives them wiggle room on finding a fundamental right.
Very interesting ruling and probably dispositive about the eventual outcome.
I am having way way too much fun with this now.
Appeal that bitches.
âfull of holesâ-- boy, he doesnât suffer fools gladly, does he? That had to sting. 
1 Like
Actually, itâs there:
"But Justice Scalia, in a dissenting opinion in Lawrence ... joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas, thought not. He wrote that 'principle and logic' would require the Court, given its decision in Lawrence, to hold that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage,"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/richard-posner-scalia-gay-marriage
I wish I could agree. The current SCOTUS majority of ideological right wing Catholics may well demonstrate, once again, that any b***s*** rationale they choose to articulate is the law of the land. âImmune to reviewâ? Not with this politicized, extreme court majority.
Doomed to failure at the appellate level that still cares about law, maybe. At the next level up, only dogma and arithmetic matter.