Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    23,656
    vCash
    1500

    Supreme Court will take up 2 gay marriage cases

    The Associated Press ‏@AP
    BREAKING: Supreme Court will take up gay marriage cases, including California ban on same-sex unions
    Breaking News ‏@BreakingNews
    US Supreme Court will take up California's ban on same-sex marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act - @NBCNews
    Very interested to see the rulings of these.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    38,229
    vCash
    1500
    A good ruling here could be big. It's hard to imagine at this point they'd do otherwise.
    Visit my Blog.



    "Glad the GOP finally came out with an Obamacare alternative. Can't wait to see their alternative to the Iraq War." - @LOLGOP

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,219
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    A good ruling here could be big. It's hard to imagine at this point they'd do otherwise.
    There is room for all kinds of rulings. On DOMA, they might carve parts as unconstitutional, while other parts are, or, they could uphold the entire thing, or throw the whole thing out. On the other hand, the more important case might be the CA prop 8 case. Again, they might make a narrow, CA only ruling saying you can't vote an existing right away. On the other hand, they might rule that the lower court was wrong in meddling in a states law. Or, and this is the most interesting possibility, they might say that marriage is a fundamental right, and that all states will have to allow it.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by natepro View Post
    A good ruling here could be big. It's hard to imagine at this point they'd do otherwise.
    It will be interesting.

    Scalia is certainly not voting for it (I would be shocked):


    Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.... [T]he Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed.
    That's from his dissent of Lawrence vs Texas.

    No one has any idea about how Roberts will vote since he has never ruled on it, but it has been rumoured that he worked behind the scenes for a gay rights cause in that very same case.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2005/aug...on/na-roberts4


    Justice Thomas dissented in Lawerence and he dissented in Romer vs Evans. He concurred with Scalia's dissent:
    [Amendment 2 is] a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority to revise those mores through use of the laws. That objective, and the means chosen to achieve it, are [...] unimpeachable under any constitutional doctrine hitherto pronounced.

    more:



    "Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment. Amendment 2 is designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will. I dissent."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romer_v._Evans


    I would suspect this is going to be 5-4 or more likely 6-3 (Roberts wants a legacy as chief could matter) in striking down DOMA but its still the SCOTUS, one can easily be wrong.

    Edit: To get a precedent of why Kennedy may not vote in favour of striking down DOMA (And he's almost certainly the swing vote, one could look to Boy Scouts of America vs Dale) but on the other hand:

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...stice-kennedy/

    Still, I think Roberts will join the Liberal wing based on what I've read so far.

    A look at Alito on gay rights also:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/Court/Sam...vil_Rights.htm


    I doubt any of the 4 liberals will not vote to overturn but we'll see on that also.
    Last edited by jrice9; 12-07-2012 at 03:50 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    31,621
    vCash
    1500
    Yeah you can slice up a dozen different rulings, but ultimately if they allude to anything about the California ruling to be unconstitutional, every other state is immediately in question.

    I've been waiting for this for years. So glad to see it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,219
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Yeah you can slice up a dozen different rulings, but ultimately if they allude to anything about the California ruling to be unconstitutional, every other state is immediately in question.

    I've been waiting for this for years. So glad to see it.
    I am glad about the DOMA case, but if they had just declined to hear the CA case, then my friends could get married tomorrow. Now, it cannot happen until next summer, if, the court rules in their favor.

    I'm old and would have preferred the sure thing for my friends.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,446
    vCash
    1500
    Interesting test for the Roberts court. Too much adherence to the conservative political agenda makes them a laughing foot note in the SCOTUS history book. Who wants to go down in history with Renquist, Scalia and Thomas as the knee-jerk conservative non-thinkers. Supreme Court Judges want to be the smartest guy in the room. Having a reputation as rubber stamp guy gets you an eternity of sarcastic footnotes in future cases. Cases where the future court calls you an idiot in legalese. Interesting to see if Roberts wants the Roberts court to be seen in the same light as the Renquist court.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    6,219
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    Interesting test for the Roberts court. Too much adherence to the conservative political agenda makes them a laughing foot note in the SCOTUS history book. Who wants to go down in history with Renquist, Scalia and Thomas as the knee-jerk conservative non-thinkers. Supreme Court Judges want to be the smartest guy in the room. Having a reputation as rubber stamp guy gets you an eternity of sarcastic footnotes in future cases. Cases where the future court calls you an idiot in legalese. Interesting to see if Roberts wants the Roberts court to be seen in the same light as the Renquist court.
    Doesn't seem to bother Thomas. He doesn't even ask a question.
    Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    indianpolis - north side
    Posts
    9,446
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by cabernetluver View Post
    Doesn't seem to bother Thomas. He doesn't even ask a question.
    I am not a SCOTUS historian by any means, but Thomas has to be in the running for the worst justice ever.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    14,012
    vCash
    1500
    This is good news. We need to allow Gays and Lesbians to marry. I absolutely endorse nation-wide approval of Gay Marriage. It will be a historic moment if it approved.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •