Supreme Court Gay Marriage Rulings Will Come Tomorrow

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorBen, Jun 25, 2013.

  1. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,968
    Likes Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,715
    True. So it only leaves citizens supporting a facially valid initiative that was inflicted at sufferance on their state government without judicial remedy on constitutional issues/federal questions... which is better? Somehow?
  2. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,255
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +404
    You can still raise federal law issues intertwined in state law in state court. State court's have concurrent power to address federal law and have that, ultimately, reviewed by the SCOTUS.
  3. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,190
    Likes Received:
    629
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,477
    Of note as I'm reading, from Kennedy's Windsor opinion:

    That was largely the argument advanced against Prop. 8 in Perry and didn't come up much in Windsor. With it making its appearance in the Windsor opinion could conceivably be used as an argument against marriage definitions in states offering civil unions (with "pure animus" likely being the argument you would have to fall back on in a challenge to a law banning both, like Florida's).
  4. Spurffelbow833
    Online

    Spurffelbow833 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Messages:
    10,023
    Likes Received:
    607
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,373
    Enter the wedding planner's worst nightmare--Groomzilla!!!
  5. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,190
    Likes Received:
    629
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,477
    But if the plaintiff files in federal court, what basis would anyone have to seek to have it remanded to state court where the intervenors could come in? And presumably you would run into the same problem of having it unappealable to SCOTUS because, while they may have had sufficient standing to proceed in state court, when they then become subject to Article III they do not.

    Thus either filing in state court, or the state removing on federal question jurisdiction, would kick the proponents back out of the case. That's a bit of a hollow consolation.
  6. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,305
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    Nothing says royalty like being able to be somewhat legally married in a few states.
  7. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,968
    Likes Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,715
    Are you seriously not seeing any pitfalls here? You can nitpick the particulars all you want, but at the end of the day, you still have a situation where a ballot measure that the state doesn't like, if it can be struck down on grounds that would otherwise have redress in the federal courts, can now be left to die without defense on the merits. That troubles me. It inherently subordinates citizen initiatives to the caprice of the state government they were passed to impose upon.
  8. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,255
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +404
    I was stating a fact. Not making a conclusion.
  9. mocgator
    Offline

    mocgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,511
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The ATL
    Ratings Received:
    +731
    Scalia's dissent is epic.
  10. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,976
    Likes Received:
    2,831
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,988
    Enough with the race baiting.
  11. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,255
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +404
    Alito probably has the stronger argument, but Scalia is far more entertaining.
  12. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,190
    Likes Received:
    629
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,477
    For actually trying to make something positive for them out of the holding, Roberts has the only useful dissent, but Alito's is certainly the best reasoned in its disagreement I think.
  13. mocgator
    Offline

    mocgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,511
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The ATL
    Ratings Received:
    +731
    Wait... wasn't obama against gay marriage 18 months ago???
  14. helix139
    Offline

    helix139 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,739
    Likes Received:
    882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,965
    I think Scalia got it right on Windsor and in a very entertaining way LOL. There is a TON of inconsistency in the majority opinion. Alito's dissent was also very well-said and reasoned, but I agree with Scalia where they differ on the standing issue. I think Alito hit the core of the matter out of the park on the rest of it though.
  15. g8rjd
    Offline

    g8rjd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    7,255
    Likes Received:
    266
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Tallahassee, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +404
    Standing is Scalia's baby. He wrote Lujan.
  16. g8tr80
    Offline

    g8tr80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,616
    Likes Received:
    202
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,132
    Nothing says royalty like the progressive obsession with everything gay. Now they can get married. It now has become a federal issue. The American people are no longer in the loop. Fantastic. God bless them. In your estimation what's next?

    I pick a full frontal assault on any church unwilling to marry homosexuals.

    Then what? There is always something next......

    .
  17. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,976
    Likes Received:
    2,831
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,988
    :laugh::laugh::laugh:


    No, he wasn't...
  18. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,968
    Likes Received:
    835
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,715
    In general, I am a big standing hawk too, but this seems to be a pretty unique situation whereby standing is a weapon a recalcitrant state government can use to effectively override a popularly adopted referendum it doesn't like. As long as the state legislature and state judiciary agree (i.e. no state judicial remedy), they can obviate even a 99% supported ballot measure, as long as they have one willing plaintiff to challenge it, to lay down for. Then, even if valid federal jurisdiction to hear an appeal might exist, the government can refuse to appeal and nobody else can do it in their place.

    Any indication yet as to whether any groups in CA are going to try to go to court to force an appeal? I can't remember, did CA even put on a case before Walker?
  19. anstro76
    Offline

    anstro76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    7,314
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    St.Petersburg
    Ratings Received:
    +945
    Churches already refuse to marry based on certain criteria with no government involvement.. I don't see this ruling changing that.

    Sent from my mind using ESP
  20. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,305
    Likes Received:
    343
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,181
    I guess I am not seeing the assault here. People were awarded civil rights (sort of) today, but it seems as if you are viewing this as people losing rights. Were the American people out of the loop wen blacks were awarded the right to vote? Majority is irrelevant here.

Share This Page