Discussion for article #227978
Anyone know how this comports with the federal judge ruling that LA’s same sex marriage ban is constitutional?
Fear not, bigots! Some judicial jackhole in one of your idiot red states will no doubt follow this up with an expansive Hobby Lobby ruling that says religious institutions of all kinds are exempt from employment discrimination laws. Sovereign Citizenry: Coming soon to a brave new world near you.
Anyone know how this comports with the federal judge ruling that LA’s same sex marriage ban is constitutional?
I believe the current status of the ban in the federal courts will (for now) overrule the state court’s finding – the Supremacy Clause and all that. If the district court judge doesn’t stay his ruling for the time being, I’m sure the state appellate court will.
At the same time, the state district court judge undoubtedly recognizes that the federal court ruling is an outlier that ultimately will not stand.
A single federal judge’s ruling is not binding precedent for state courts. [A bit of inside baseball – not even a federal court of appeals ruling would be here – so we can have the 9th Cir. say one thing and the CA Supreme Court another, e.g.] So, the fact that federal judge upheld the ban can be ignored by the state judge in lieu of all the other rulings that struck them down.
Only the USSC would be. And, federal courts in these cases repeatedly have stayed their rulings for the state to appeal. So, state rulings might be another way to get to the promised land, though this too is but a lower court ruling.
That’s going to make “Bobby” Jindahl cry. Better pass the collection plate.
America Wins Again!!
Progress marches on!
Of course it is unconstitutional. It is based on religious prejudice and little else. Here in America, we try to LEAVE religion out of our decisions, the Catholic assholes of SCOTUS notwithstanding
You think that same-sex marriage is going away?
You’re in for a world of disappointment, mister.
Too bad he forgot to tell Abraham and Moses about that.
You mean religious freedom to infringe upon the freedom of others with different beliefs?
Re:
Of course it is unconstitutional. It is based on religious prejudice and little else. Here in America, we try to LEAVE religion out of our decisions, the Catholic assholes of SCOTUS notwithstanding
I believe Sonia Sotomayor and Anthony Kennedy are Latin Catholics, the latter being the author of U.S. v. Windsor. Even if you refer to their 4 other co-religious grouping as assholes, lumping those of good conscience is uncalled for.
Funny you should ask. Was just at a lecture last night by a SCOTUS practitioner. His belief was that Kennedy would grudgingly side with the progressives on the current court on the basis of this really being a right held by individuals, not groups, something he seems to have a problem with given his distaste for affirmative action. My question would be, would Thomas apply the privileges and immunities clause he suddenly found to exist in McDonald to something like this? If he were consistent he’d have to, but he’s consistently reactionary, voting his Opus Dei beliefs on culture wars issues.
Those four I believe are Opus Dei types. Heck, Scalia even insists on Mass in Latin.
Yeah, didn’t they settle that in Hobby Lobby?