Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

I'm pointing out that the charge of people wanting "the constitution say whatever they want to say" goes back almost to the beginning of SCOTUS jurisprudence.

Furthermore, in Marbury itself, the text of the Constitution does not say the Court can invalidate laws. That is, however, something that can easily be inferred when you look back on American practice - ie, what the spirit of the text is, which is what "SHOULD say" is really.

[DinoDoc]

There's a spirit of the text? Can you summon it with a ouija board?

[Nikolai]

My eyes. Oh god. I need brain bleach.

xpost.

That pic was much, much better than any pic Fun has posted, though...

[MichaeltheGreat]

You might want to adjust those 10:1 odds MtG.

Michael van Poppel @mpoppel
AP: Justice Anthony Kennedy suggests throwing out CA gay marriage ban would take Supreme Court into "uncharted waters."

Ok, 20:1

Kennedy's comment is speaking to an actual overturning of the ban on the merits, not a standing to appeal argument.

To rule on the underlying case, SCOTUS has to jump through some equally big hoops as to who has standing to appeal. They would essentially have to dance around opening the door to anyone and everyone with an axe to grind and a law firm having the right to appeal virtually any decision.

What Kennedy's referring to is if SCOTUS overturns Prop 8 on the Equal Protection claim, it essentially invalidates every one of 37 other state's "one man one woman" statutory or constitutional constructions.

A decision that the appellees lack standing for the appeal leaves the 9th Circuit decision intact, but it only affects that decision and Prop. 8 exactly as worded, and has no other effect. It also leaves open the option to pursue an alternative to Prop 8, or for a proper party to re-present an appeal to SCOTUS, or even a new direct challenge at the USDC level. It's a punt, not a decision.

[Hauldren Collider]

That pic was much, much better than any pic Fun has posted, though...

I have him on ignore, so thankfully I have been spared from those. Except for the couple of times when Drake quoted him.

[onodera]

It can only end with government getting out of marriage altogether. Strike that word from all laws. If people want hospital visitation rights, there are PoAs for that. If people want reduced tax burden, they can register a household or if the government wants to promote birth, they can register as cohabitating parents of a child.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

Hell, Scalia does this all the time.

The notion of a "dead" Constitution is delusional. How "reasonable" is "reasonable?" How "speedy" is "speedy?" At what exact point does "jeopardy" attach? What is the exact boundary between protected "speech" and unprotected "action." The Constitution is written in terms of prinicples which have to be applied to specific facts by interpretation.

[Hauldren Collider]

It can only end with government getting out of marriage altogether. Strike that word from all laws. If people want hospital visitation rights, there are PoAs for that. If people want reduced tax burden, they can register a household or if the government wants to promote birth, they can register as cohabitating parents of a child.

Works for me.

[snoopy369]

A decision that the appellees lack standing for the appeal leaves the 9th Circuit decision intact, but it only affects that decision and Prop. 8 exactly as worded, and has no other effect. It also leaves open the option to pursue an alternative to Prop 8, or for a proper party to re-present an appeal to SCOTUS, or even a new direct challenge at the USDC level. It's a punt, not a decision.

That's not consistent with what SCOTUSblog said - exactly the opposite, in fact. If they punt vis-a-vis lack of standing, then that lack of standing applies to the appeal as well, so the District Court's ruling is what is left standing. That ruling would only apply in this specific instance (to the specific parties in the case) and not count for precedent, which would have to wait for a more directly relevant case [ie, a suit by a member of government].

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/reaching-a-judgment/

There is only one question on which it seemed five Justices might agree: the judgment should be vacated because the petitioners lack standing. The Chief Justice and the four more liberal members of the Court indicated their sympathy for that position. If they vote that way, the Ninth Circuit’s decision striking down Proposition 8 will be vacated – wiped from the books – but U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker’s judgment invalidating Proposition 8 would remain unaffected. That district court ruling would apply to the parties in the case. There would be additional litigation about whether and how Proposition 8 would be applied elsewhere. If Proposition 8 were invalidated in those cases, an appeal likely could be taken in a case in which a state or local official wanted to enforce it. So the issue would go back to the Ninth Circuit, and potentially to the Supreme Court in a few years.

[MichaeltheGreat]

There's a spirit of the text? Can you summon it with a ouija board?

Nine justices do that about 90 times a year.

[snoopy369]

It can only end with government getting out of marriage altogether. Strike that word from all laws. If people want hospital visitation rights, there are PoAs for that. If people want reduced tax burden, they can register a household or if the government wants to promote birth, they can register as cohabitating parents of a child.

The issue with that is that the tax burden, the hospital visitation rights, etc., are all created by the state in the first place. Minus the state, you would have whatever rights the hospital chose to give you - and that would be effectively anarchy, as nobody would know what rights they had until the hospitalization occurred. That's particularly problematic when you realize people can be hospitalized at whatever the nearest hospital is if they are in a serious accident or similar. The state exists for the purpose of simplifying these sorts of interactions. That's why you have birth certificates, marriage certificates, death certificates, property deeds, etc.; so that there is a reliable, consistent method of determining some simple facts without going through legal proceedings. Taking that away would be truly disasterous.

I don't disagree though that you could remove the words; change "marriage" to "civil union" for _everyone_, and perhaps it would simplify things. I don't think so, though; this is at its heart not a legal issue, but rather a social issue. Change the names and most of the same people would be for and against it.

[DinoDoc]

4 do for sure. 1 alternates between his heathen tendencies and the true and righteous path.

[Ben Kenobi]

Do you think posting some ass-grabbing 7th grade comment like "9th Circus" is worth any real response?

Given that the 9th circus is the most often overturned? Yes, yes it is.

You might also want to get your facts straight, the 9th Circuit didn't overturn anything. They upheld a United States District Court decision.

It's called the will of the people. I think Jefferson said something about that once.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

I fail to see how one can make a distinction between a roomate and a spouse unless the union is an essential part of marriage. Sex is relevant, color is not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There's a spirit of the text? Can you summon it with a ouija board?

Only if you call the ghost of Justice Marshall