Surpeme Court Gay Marriage Cases....

[Imran Siddiqui]

Okay, regardless of which side of the issue you are on... Why is this at the supreme court? Why shouldn't it be a decision at the state level? If the state you are in has rules you don't like, move!

To go back to the op... the reason Prop 8 is at the Supreme Court is... well, I have no idea, seeing as how they are likely going to rule that the defendants don't have standing or that they can't come to a consensus hence the 9th Circuit ruling stands. The only other reason (which I don't think was determined by the 9th C, but I could be wrong) is that different districts are coming up with different determinations of what the equal protection clause is saying when it comes to homosexual marriage and the SCOTUS has to determine between them (as having different circuits with different interpretations of the Constitution causes issues).

DOMA is because the Congress decided they wanted to make a federal determination on determining if the state can decide what marriage is and it will all but surely be struck down for that reason because the right and left will likely agree here.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

So basically everyone, everywhere, aside from a few nuts who rail that Marbury v. Madison was improperly decided are the spineless simpletons... got it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

And in this matter - Reynolds provides precedent for determination of marriage as federal jurisdiction.

And this is why. Last freebie before my billing meter starts. This one is only worth answering because it has some actual educational value. Reynolds was only a marriage case at the technically federal level, because Utah was a territory, not a state. The territorial court system is administered at the federal level, by Congress under Article IV authority. Since they are not Article III courts, they do not have jurisdiction over federal law issues other than territorial law issues in the particular territory. Article IV judges can not be appointed to United States Courts of Appeal, among other limitations. Decisions of Article IV courts do not have precedential value in Article III courts. Article IV jurisdictions also do not have separate bankrupcty courts as to Article III judicial districts. Instead, territorial court judges hear both bankruptcy and other cases.

In practice, to avoid confusion, territorial courts are referred to as territorial courts, not federal courts.

The issues litigated at the federal level in Reynolds were not marriage per se, or even polygamous marriage. There were three technical procedural claims, and a First Amendement religious duty claim, which in essence is the same argument unsuccessfully raised in Indian peyote use cases in the 1970s through 1990s and the Florida Santeria cases in the 1990s.

The gist of the SCOTUS position from Reynolds (and it wasn't the first religious duties case) through the present is that actions based on religious beliefs are not protected by the First Amendment, only the right to have the beliefs themselves. So if you think you need to wage jihad on the west and saw off people's heads, that's fine, until you actually go out and try to start doing it.

So sorry, Reynolds isn't a marriage case, it's a religious freedom case.

[kentonio]

There are a lot of idiots that think the actual text of the constitution is irrelevant to the law.

Where are your bear arms?

[Hauldren Collider]

EDIT: Wait i'm retarded, that was MTG not imran

[DinoDoc]

To go back to the op... the reason Prop 8 is at the Supreme Court is... well, I have no idea, seeing as how they are likely going to rule that the defendants don't have standing or that they can't come to a consensus hence the 9th Circuit ruling stands. The only other reason (which I don't think was determined by the 9th C, but I could be wrong) is that different districts are coming up with different determinations of what the equal protection clause is saying when it comes to homosexual marriage and the SCOTUS has to determine between them (as having different circuits with different interpretations of the Constitution causes issues).

Some tweets that might interest you:

SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog
Breaking: key vote Kennedy VERY uncomfortable striking down #prop8. Suggests dismissing case. Would leave in place 9th Cir pro-#ssm ruling.

SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog
There are not 5 votes to strike down #prop8 and recognize equal right to #ssm at this time

[snoopy369]

Wrong, the court must act to determine what the law is. The constitution must be written to protect the weak. And amended if it is insufficient.

That is not the intent of the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS exists as one of the checks on authority of the other two branches. Both the President and the Congress reflect the will of the majority. The SCOTUS exists in part to protect fairness and justice, which are not necessarily in line with the will of the majority.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

I know "equity" has a particular legal meaning, but I think it's not unreasonable to extend its meaning in that sentence to include fairness; that's the root purpose of a court of equity, after all.

[MichaeltheGreat]

So who won? The spineless simpletons or the fabulous fags?

I'm giving 10:1 on fabulous fags via a penalty (standing)

[Hauldren Collider]

Where are your bear arms?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]173758[/ATTACH]

It says ARM BEARS, stupid.



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

[snoopy369]

You can believe what you like, but it actually isn't all that partisan. If you paid attention to more than the 2 or 3 really big constitutional law cases every year, and actually read the opinions of the justices, you'd realize that. But of course you'd rather buy into the cheap woe-is-america what-is-our-government "well OBVIOUSLY the supreme court is partisan!" opinion that is the current "common sense" without actually having any reason to know that.

And this is why I said I'd get bored. You didn't even reply to my statement - which was explicitly that I didn't claim it was expected to be partisan in this case, but I was curious as to why this particular 5-4 alignment occurred.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Some tweets that might interest you:

SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog
Breaking: key vote Kennedy VERY uncomfortable striking down #prop8. Suggests dismissing case. Would leave in place 9th Cir pro-#ssm ruling.

SCOTUSblog @SCOTUSblog
There are not 5 votes to strike down #prop8 and recognize equal right to #ssm at this time

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

[Hauldren Collider]

So basically everyone, everywhere, aside from a few nuts who rail that Marbury v. Madison was improperly decided are the spineless simpletons... got it.

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

And this is why. Last freebie before my billing meter starts. This one is only worth answering because it has some actual educational value. Reynolds was only a marriage case at the technically federal level, because Utah was a territory, not a state. The territorial court system is administered at the federal level, by Congress under Article IV authority.

Which is an excellent argument - except that is not what the argument that Reynolds makes. Reynolds argues by analogy with Trial by Jury and Habeaus Corpus arguing that the Federal government can only defend, it cannot define. The Federal government cannot alter the pre-existing definition of marriage - and by extension - the states cannot do so either. Reynolds doesn't argue that it's decision applies just to the territory of Utah - it argues that the actual definition of marriage is one man and one woman and that Congress has the authority to defend it throughout the United States.

So sorry, Reynolds isn't a marriage case, it's a religious freedom case.

That's not what the decision says. It's both. It's both a religious freedom and a marriage case. Reynolds argues that the pre-existing federal definition inherited from English Common Law prevails over alternatives. Until we get a ruling that says otherwise - that's the precedent. It's also an explicit rejection of Sharia law and it's application in America.

[Hauldren Collider]

And this is why I said I'd get bored. You didn't even reply to my statement - which was explicitly that I didn't claim it was expected to be partisan in this case, but I was curious as to why this particular 5-4 alignment occurred.

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.

[DinoDoc]

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

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."