Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[snoopy369]

You should read the opinions if you want to know (being serious here, not snarky). They actually usually aren't that long. Scalia's are usually humorous, too.

If I had time to read opinions I wouldn't have asked here Moreover, I do not claim to be an expert in everything, and was hoping Imran or some other scholar of the SCOTUS would chime in.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's fairly consistent with the long-standing general SCOTUS aversion to taking on essentially political cases.

How is the 9th Circus overturning Prop 8 political? It's judicial tyranny and should be smacked down.

[Hauldren Collider]

If you really want to understand it, reading the opinions is really the best way, getting it secondhand from anyone is iffy IMO. The press really sucks at reporting on the supreme court.

[MichaeltheGreat]

HC how would you resolve the issues surrounding FF+C clause plus the spousal visas?

There's no real Full Faith and Credit Clause issues, unless you reach a preliminary step that the validity of a marriage falls within the "records" of another state for purposes of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Technical note here, the "records" meaning has generally been narrowly construed to include only records of acts and proceedings of the state, to cover gaps between "acts" and "judgments." For example, a Prevention of Domestic Violence Order or an interim property order in a divorce or business disolution or probate case is not a "judgment" but there is an official record of the proceeding and orders of the relevant courts. "Records" for Full Faith and Credit Clause purposes has never been held to include every document ever filed with a state body. In fact, in property cases, the oppositie has been held in disputes over the valid recording of a property claim.

As far as marriage goes, back in the good ol' days when most states had anti-miscegenation statutes, the Full Faith and Credit Clause was never held to require a state to recognize a "marriage" from another state where a darkie had bamboozled and defiled a poor white victim. Not a great background to hang your hat on, there, boy.

[Nikolai]

Wait i'm retarded

careful writing such dangerous quotes.

[MichaeltheGreat]

How is the 9th Circus overturning Prop 8 political? It's judicial tyranny and should be smacked down.

Maybe you should educate yourself on the meaning of "political cases?" It's a well established term in US jurisprudence.

Do you think posting some ass-grabbing 7th grade comment like "9th Circus" is worth any real response? You might also want to get your facts straight, the 9th Circuit didn't overturn anything. They upheld a United States District Court decision.

Now go stand in the corner.

[snoopy369]

If you really want to understand it, reading the opinions is really the best way, getting it secondhand from anyone is iffy IMO. The press really sucks at reporting on the supreme court.

Again, I suspect getting second hand information from someone who is well educated in the material is superior to me figuring it out on my own. I mean, the press really sucks at reporting on health issues also, but I don't diagnose myself and ignore my doctor

[Hauldren Collider]

Maybe you should educate yourself on the meaning of "political cases?" It's a well established term in US jurisprudence.

Do you think posting some ass-grabbing 7th grade comment like "9th Circus" is worth any real response? You might also want to get your facts straight, the 9th Circuit didn't overturn anything. They upheld a United States District Court decision.

Now go stand in the corner.

In Ben's defense , one of my dad's conservative coworkers always refers to it as the 9th circuit court of schlemiels. He's the head of one of Alston & Bird's practice groups.

[MichaeltheGreat]

If you really want to understand it, reading the opinions is really the best way, getting it secondhand from anyone is iffy IMO. The press really sucks at reporting on the supreme court.

It's also good practice to go back through the chain of appellate cases that led to the SCOTUS case, as the factual and procedural background portions of the SCOTUS opinion usually give very little background on claims raised that SCOTUS doesn't reach in their decisions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not sure where you're getting that I oppose Marbury

I said that it is the job of the courts to determine what the law is, which is what Marbury says, word for word.

Your statement:

"I'd say the people that think the constitution says whatever they want it to say are the spineless simpletons, since they are too spineless to actually get their policy passed through legitimate democratic methods."

The opponents of Marbury's ruling (though not the end result) basically stated that Justice Marshall was trying to get the Constitution to say whatever he wants it to say. Their argument was that nothing in Article III explicitly allows the SCOTUS to overturn laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

[Hauldren Collider]

Your statement:

"I'd say the people that think the constitution says whatever they want it to say are the spineless simpletons, since they are too spineless to actually get their policy passed through legitimate democratic methods."

The opponents of Marbury's ruling (though not the end result) basically stated that Justice Marshall was trying to get the Constitution to say whatever he wants it to say. Their argument was that nothing in Article III explicitly allows the SCOTUS to overturn laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

You're making a fallacy here. Just because they made that argument against Marbury doesn't mean I am wrong to say that it applies here.

You (and others) seem to think the Supreme Court should rule on what the constitution SHOULD say, rather than what it DOES say.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again, I suspect getting second hand information from someone who is well educated in the material is superior to me figuring it out on my own. I mean, the press really sucks at reporting on health issues also, but I don't diagnose myself and ignore my doctor

SCOTUSblog

[Asher]

It says ARM BEARS, stupid.



Get it right. Only you can prevent living document jurisprudence.

I support arming bears.

[DinoDoc]

SCOTUSblog

Seems to point away from the result you might have been hoping for.

[Hauldren Collider]

My eyes. Oh god. I need brain bleach.

xpost.