9th Circuit Overturns Prop 8 In California

[lions2011]

9h circuit today voted 2 -1 and overturned the lower courts ruling that banned same sex marriage.

ofcourse the Old Republican Boys Network ( Gingrich , Orin Hatch etc...) came out and blasted the decision claiming it was judicial activism at it's best.

 

[Monster]

Slavery - it would still exist if not for government intervention.

 

[martmay]

9th Circuit court isnt mainstream. This will head to the SC

 

[Thumb]

9th Circuit court isnt mainstream. This will head to the SC

How?

The ban by the lower court was unconstitutional, that's why it was overturned by the 9th CC.

The SC is not going to get involved, there is no constitutional basis for the ban, the 9th's decision will stand.

Get over it.

 

[martmay]

9th Circuit court isnt mainstream. This will head to the SC

How?

The ban by the lower court was unconstitutional, that's why it was overturned by the 9th CC.

The SC is not going to get involved, there is no constitutional basis for the ban, the 9th's decision will stand.

Get over it.

take a pill. I could care less


however,
"The losing party could then appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has discretion over which cases it decides to hear, and hears arguments in only about 1 percent of all petitions filed for certiorari (judicial review) each term, so there is no guarantee it would take up an appeal of Perry. If four Supreme Court Justices agree to hear the case, the Supreme Court will review the case."

 

[Thumb]

Which pill should I take?

I'm not upset over the ruling, it was the right call.

Maybe you need one, I dunno.

 

[Michchamp]

the Supreme Court could hear it... but I doubt it in this case.

Now if, say Alabama passes a similar law and the 5th Circuit affirms its constitutionality (a process which would take a few years from start to finish) THEN the Supreme Court would pretty much have to. No idea on how they would rule. Well, I know how Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito would rule, but the only question is whether Kennedy joins them. I doubt it.

 

[Thumb]

the Supreme Court could hear it... but I doubt it in this case.

Now if, say Alabama passes a similar law and the 5th Circuit affirms its constitutionality (a process which would take a few years from start to finish) THEN the Supreme Court would pretty much have to. No idea on how they would rule. Well, I know how Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito would rule, but the only question is whether Kennedy joins them. I doubt it.

Yes, they could hear it, but basically 4 Justices would have to almost come out and say they believe such a ban is not a violation of the constitution, since the courts only purpose of hearing it would be for the conservative Justices to argue upholding the ban.

My gut tells me they wont touch it.

 

[byco42]

Monster [/color]]Slavery - it would still exist if not for government intervention.

And it existed for a long time in the U.S. because government protected its legal status, too. A convenient omission on your part.

 

[Michchamp]

the Supreme Court could hear it... but I doubt it in this case.

Now if, say Alabama passes a similar law and the 5th Circuit affirms its constitutionality (a process which would take a few years from start to finish) THEN the Supreme Court would pretty much have to. No idea on how they would rule. Well, I know how Scalia-Thomas-Roberts-Alito would rule, but the only question is whether Kennedy joins them. I doubt it.

Yes, they could hear it, but basically 4 Justices would have to almost come out and say they believe such a ban is not a violation of the constitution, since the courts only purpose of hearing it would be for the conservative Justices to argue upholding the ban.

My gut tells me they wont touch it.

5 justices need to affirm the petition for certioari in order for the case to proceed to the SC. In practicality though, only 4 do, because there is a gentlemen's agreement that if four do, one from the other side will join.

I still don't think you get all four conservative justices to agree to cert here. I don't think they want to draw any more attention to this issue than it's already garnered.

But if another state & federal circuit affirms this kind of law, then there's a split in the circuits and the court pretty much has to step in. (not definite, but is more likely to)

 

[lions2011]

US Supreme Court would side 5 - 4 and back up the 9th.

4 liberal and 4 conservative judges which would take the tie to Anthony Kennedy who sides with Liberals on most social issues even though he was a Reagan appointee.

 

[Michchamp]

Monster [/color]]Slavery - it would still exist if not for government intervention.

And it existed for a long time in the U.S. because government protected its legal status, too. A convenient omission on your part.

Point being, a decision is not per se bad simply because the federal government intervenes to determine the outcome.

 

[byco42]

And it existed for a long time in the U.S. because government protected its legal status, too. A convenient omission on your part.

Point being, a decision is not per se bad simply because the federal government intervenes to determine the outcome.

The point is that rights are inalienable and government has not the power to confer them on anyone. Or remove them, either.

 

[lions2011]

the 9ths opinion was also written with Kennedy in mind...not a shot in hell the SC will overturn it.

 

[Michchamp]

Point being, a decision is not per se bad simply because the federal government intervenes to determine the outcome.

The point is that rights are inalienable and government has not the power to confer them on anyone. Or remove them, either.

while in some philosophical "declaration of the rights of man" sense you are correct, for all practical purposes, the government, i.e. the ruling political power, decides what rights you have.

your point about the government preserving slavery for 80 years or so undermines what you're trying to say, I think.

 

[Michchamp]

I don't know how these "small government" hypocrites on the right can attack this decision.

two adults mutually decide they love eachother, want to spend their lives together... they deserve all the legal recognition of any other two adults that the state would grant to other marriages. the state shouldn't intervene to deny them this right. They are adult citizens, and must be afforded all equal protection of the law. it's as simple as that.

If some church doesn't like it... they don't have to allow them to get married there. But that shouldn't dictate the laws that govern anyone who is not a member of that church.

that's the way I see it.

and as far as "destroying the sanctity of marriage..." ask Gingrich's wife #1 or wife #2 what they think of that...

 

[Monster]

LOL - On facebook, I'm watching all of these conservative, bible thumping assholes crying about "We voted." "This is bullshit, how can they go against the will of the people?"

 

[Monster]

Monster [/color]]Slavery - it would still exist if not for government intervention.

And it existed for a long time in the U.S. because government protected its legal status, too. A convenient omission on your part.

not a convenient omission at all.

I didn't pretend that the government was perfect. What i was implying is that sometimes the majority doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Monster [/color]]LOL - On facebook, I'm watching all of these conservative, bible thumping assholes crying about "We voted." "This is bullshit, how can they go against the will of the people?"

Ironically, and living in Sacto you're probably aware of the stats, Monster, a ground swell of socially conservative black voters, traditional Democrats, who came out to support Obama, ended up being instrumental in supporting the ban.

I would be surprised if the Supreme Court doesn't ultimately hear this case; it may be years, though, and Champ is likely right, it may take an oppositive judicial decision elsewhere to motivate the court to settle the law.

For the record, I didn't vote on that ballot initiative. I refused to lend my voice to anything which would indicate that the government should be involved in the marriage licensing business with regard to anybody.

 

[byco42]

Didn't anyone learn the lesson of 1854 of the futility of voting on people's rights? Especially on a right that does not exist, like the "right to marry?" I contend that government has no power to dictate the definition of marriage to religious instutions and it's already far too involved in the practice as it is.