PDA

View Full Version : DOMA



PotVsKtl
02-24-2012, 03:31 PM
Alright lawyers. Who is following this? Since the DOJ are no longer defending cases against DOMA, the GOP have decided to appeal the latest unconstitutionality ruling to the CA 9th.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/24/house-gop-leaders-will-appeal-latest-defense-of-marriage-act-ruling/

Aren't they basically ensuring that the decision will become precedent with this action? Is this an act of stupidity or just the only path available to SCOTUS?

TomAz
02-24-2012, 03:38 PM
Rights don't matter so long as everyone has a job. Well at least not gay rights. And not everyone, just most people. Let's lower the minimum wage.

PotVsKtl
02-24-2012, 03:42 PM
Rick?

TomAz
02-24-2012, 03:44 PM
You should thank the pope your mother didnt' use birth control.

Miroir Noir
02-24-2012, 04:57 PM
Two reasons. First, this is almost certainly going to end up in the Supreme Court. It's a federal statute, and there is litigation in a number of Circuits. Unlike the gay marriage cases, the individual victories and losses aren't as important because the long game will all be in front of the Justices. So if they get a Ninth Circuit precedent that's bad for their side, it won't ultimately matter that much (and indeed could theoretically help them given the Supreme Court's history of overturning controversial liberal opinions out of the Ninth). Second, an unfavorable district court decision is still a bad precedent for their side, so the appeal puts them in no worse of a position procedurally than they already are. If they don't appeal, they'll be left defending a slew of new lawsuits in district court.

PotVsKtl
02-24-2012, 05:18 PM
I guess I misunderstood. I thought that the Golinski ruling would not be precedential and would only apply within that district unless and until sent up to circuit court. Pretty obvious how the 9th will rule so I guess it's a date with SCOTUS some time in 2047.

weeklymix
02-24-2012, 05:23 PM
In 2047 John Roberts could still be Chief Justice.

PotVsKtl
02-24-2012, 05:25 PM
http://iwilltryit.com/bush_straight_face.jpg

Miroir Noir
02-24-2012, 05:27 PM
You're right, Pot: it's not binding precedent. But it would be a persuasive non-binding precedent within the Circuit, and one strengthened, at least rhetorically, by the lack of appeal.

malcolmjamalawesome
02-24-2012, 06:02 PM
And secondary sources

gaypalmsprings
06-26-2013, 06:26 AM
http://brokeassstuart.com/wp-content/pictsnShit/2011/12/GoodRiddance_Logo.png


http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/wp-content/gallery/clintons/bill-clinton-frowning.jpg

canexplain
06-26-2013, 06:56 AM
Here's a big yea for GPS and our other friends. Told you, you are not special, you are just like us lolz ... cr****

miscorrections
06-26-2013, 07:07 AM
Fucking finally. And fucking finally for Prop 8 being dismissed too.

If only the SCOTUS hadn't struck down section 4 of the VRA it would've been a series of monumentally great decisions.

heart cooks brain
06-26-2013, 07:11 AM
prop 8 wasn't struck down, they declined to rule on it.

heart cooks brain
06-26-2013, 07:11 AM
as it stands now a state can still define marriage as they like, but the federal government will honor any marriage that a state deems legal.

miscorrections
06-26-2013, 07:12 AM
I know. I said it was dismissed.

heart cooks brain
06-26-2013, 07:14 AM
i guess i don't get why that's something to be exicited about?

miscorrections
06-26-2013, 07:15 AM
Because it re-validates the marriages that occurred in California in that brief window when they were legal.

nathanfairchild
06-26-2013, 07:24 AM
does that only last until they vote on it again?

miscorrections
06-26-2013, 07:28 AM
It looks like CA might get back gay marriage in general, although I'm not totally sure based on the wording of the decision.

guedita
06-26-2013, 07:38 AM
It looks like CA might get back gay marriage in general, although I'm not totally sure based on the wording of the decision.

It remains to be seen whether or not this means that only the 2 marriages being contested in the trial will get their marriage recognized as legal, because it wasn't a class action lawsuit.

miscorrections
06-26-2013, 07:38 AM
Yeah, it's kind of unclear right now. Either way: those two couples are definitively married.

guedita
06-26-2013, 07:43 AM
I heard commentators on NPR saying that the likeliest scenario is that this will be returned to the lower courts in CA for appeal and that the original Walker decision on the case will stand, paving the way for the legalization of CA marriage in the states by the end of July.

miscorrections
06-26-2013, 07:45 AM
Well, I hope that's how it shakes out!

heart cooks brain
06-26-2013, 07:47 AM
Because it re-validates the marriages that occurred in California in that brief window when they were legal.

ok that's groovy. thanks for the info.

mountmccabe
06-26-2013, 08:15 AM
The Prop 8 decision is a very strange one and I find it heartening that Sotomayor dissented. To be clear the dissent appears to just be yeah, we have standing and should decide the case (without any further talk of what that decision would be).

heart cooks brain
06-26-2013, 08:49 AM
Scalia's dissent on the DOMA case is epic.

mountmccabe
06-26-2013, 09:34 AM
Oh, hey (http://www.ksbw.com/news/politics/live-coverage-prop-8-struck-down-by-supreme-court/-/2124/20722962/-/et9v39z/-/index.html#ixzz2XL5pPMdU)


Governor Edmund G. Brown issued the following statement on the United States Supreme Court ruling on Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry):

“After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California. In light of the decision, I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state’s counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted,” Brown said.

Better source: actual press release from the Office of Governor (http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18111)

Miroir Noir
06-26-2013, 10:31 AM
My understanding is that the Ninth Circuit won't get the official remand from SCOTUS until some time in late July. Then it, in turn, will have to send the case back down to district court which will then be able to life the stay on gay marriages in California.

JustSteve
06-26-2013, 10:35 AM
Great that the decision went the way it did, but why was the vote 5-4? Should not have been that close.

guedita
06-26-2013, 10:36 AM
My understanding is that the Ninth Circuit won't get the official remand from SCOTUS until some time in late July. Then it, in turn, will have to send the case back down to district court which will then be able to life the stay on gay marriages in California.

Because there's 25 days to file an appeal, right?

Miroir Noir
06-26-2013, 11:04 AM
Yeah, 25 days to file a motion for "rehearing": http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_44

Which the Court virtually never grants.

Miroir Noir
06-26-2013, 11:09 AM
Great that the decision went the way it did, but why was the vote 5-4? Should not have been that close.

The Court decided the case on a procedural issue that had almost nothing to do with gay marriage itself. The original trial court decision that overturned Prop 8 is being upheld on the technicality that the parties who attempted to appeal it lacked the legal right or standing to bring the appeal. The Supreme Court's decision scrambled the normal ideological divisions on the issue; personally I believe Prop 8 is unconstitutional, but I also think the Court's decision to deny standing to Prop 8 opponents was incorrect.

mountmccabe
06-26-2013, 11:31 AM
I dissent. I refer the court to the title of the thread, "DOMA (http://www.coachella.com/forum/showthread.php?52358-DOMA)" (PotVsKtl ~52358, 2012). My reading was that JustSteve's question/comment was in regards to Windsor, not Perry and as such the reading given by the esteemed Mr. Noir is not germane. Kennedy, et. al (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdf) ruled that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional due to the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Roberts, Scalia and Alito all filed dissenting opinions, Roberts saying the Court has no standing to decide the issue, Scalia argued that the Court cannot override Congress, Alito argues that since the Constitution doesn't specifically guarantee the right to same-sex marriage then there is no right. Thomas agreed with Scalia and most of Alito's opinions.

So, it was not closer because reasons.


[note that I have no idea what I'm talking about and haven't read any of the full opinions]

canexplain
06-26-2013, 12:06 PM
I agree with MM not knowing exactly what was decided but then the best lawyers in the US aren't sure. Speaking of cases: Is anyone watching the live Trayvon Martin trial. It's pretty interesting for peeps like me that like that kind of stuff... cr****

RageAgainstTheAoki
06-26-2013, 12:07 PM
The Prop 8 decision is a very strange one and I find it heartening that Sotomayor dissented. To be clear the dissent appears to just be yeah, we have standing and should decide the case (without any further talk of what that decision would be).


Glad you brought this up. While I agree it's strange, it doesn't seem that unexpected given what transpired in the oral arguments. Multiple justices questioned whether the case should even be heard - Sotomayor included, I believe. Undoubtedly, a day to celebrate, but the Prop 8 ruling does raise a lot of questions. I do wonder how this ruling will impact future voter initiatives. Does it effectively weaken the voter proposition process? Does it impact other states' voter initiative/proposition systems? While any reasonably evolved person will cheer the all but certain outcome of today's decision, it does make one think about future impact.

With these two narrow rulings it looks like the battle for full nation-wide equality goes back to the states.

Well, WeHo should be fun tonight!

canexplain
06-26-2013, 12:13 PM
Lolz, the judge just said "You cannot object to your own ?" hahahahah ... cr****

canexplain
06-26-2013, 12:27 PM
OK so not even close to the same but: One day, you turkeys in other states will be MJ legal .. cr****

nationocean
06-26-2013, 12:29 PM
*suppressed* though i still agree with the pic

miscorrections
06-26-2013, 12:38 PM
OK so not even close to the same but: One day, you turkeys in other states will be MJ legal .. cr****

Ron, there's a thread for marijuana legalization.

miscorrections
06-26-2013, 12:39 PM
I'm sure pointing that out to you is both fruitless and bootless, but the power of Christ compels me.

canexplain
06-26-2013, 12:49 PM
Ron, there's a thread for marijuana legalization.

OK sure Miss C. Just a good day for a bunch of people ... cr****

Baby Sandwich
06-27-2013, 10:25 AM
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/sites/default/files/HuckabeeDOMA.jpg

canexplain
06-27-2013, 10:46 AM
If 51% of the voters always won, I would hate to think of the state the US would be in (as messed up as it is anyway). cr****

unit300021
06-28-2013, 05:33 PM
Well gay marriage is allowed immediately now. Both of the spear heading couples are officially hitched and they even aired one of them on MSNBC. Gay marriage, just as boring to watch as Heterosexual marriage. But great night though for gays.

heart cooks brain
06-28-2013, 05:35 PM
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/sites/default/files/HuckabeeDOMA.jpg

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1010015_536365583067610_1164907426_n.jpg