NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling - Page 6 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3448 posts
 Online 

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


The circumstances surrounding when those 16,000 same sex marriages occurred isn't really important. What is important is that those 16,000 same sex marriages were really invalidated upon the passage of Prop 8 and it took an improper ruling by the California Supreme Court based on sympathy for all those same sex couples who got married for those 16,000 same sex marriages to be still considered valid in California.

I know that when I voted in favor of Proposition 8 I was voting with the understanding that if Prop 8 passed then all of the same sex marriages in California would be immediately invalidated.

Your side had to cheat to save your same sex marriages in California.

However, I'm not surprised because that's your motus operandi.

You believe the ends justify the means.

Go for it, Toddy.

The voters of California who approved Prop 8 will remember what was done to our vote.





This post was edited on 3/28 at 11:28 am


Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3448 posts
 Online 

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

Nuts, are you an attorney?


quote:

Yes. Thanks!


Prove it!







Back to top
  Replies (0)
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18203 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

Keep in mind that the California Supreme Court has ruled that Prop. 8 is valid under California law. So, if the Supremes rule that they don't have standing, and, therefore, the Ninth Circus didn't have standing, the ruling would only be valid in the Northern District of California. It would not be the law of the Southern, Eastern or Central Districts.


No. Any of those district courts could issue a ruling that binds the whole state. The ruling would only be a CONTROLLING LEGAL PRECEDENT in that one district, but its order in this case applies to the whole state.






Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18203 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

Prop 8 didn't even go the the California Supreme Court. It was appealed from the Ninth District Court of Appeals directly to the SCOTUS.


Where else would an "appeal" (it's actually an application for writs) from a federal court of appeals go? They all go "directly to the SCOTUS".






Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18203 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

When you people from another galaxy get the voters in a state to approve same sex marriage then you want the Courts to rule that it can never be changed but if the voters in a state disapprove same sex marriage then you want the Courts to rule that the vote is unconstitutional and should be changed.


Well, actually, that ruling from the 9th Circuit happened before the voters of Washington approved same-sex marriage and was controlling precedent at the time of the vote, so your chronology there is wrong. In a sense, voters in Washington went into that referendum with their eyes open, at least nominally aware that if they approved same-sex marriage, they would not be able to change their minds later.

However, to address your inane point, it has nothing to do with what I or anybody else wants. We are talking about the legal effects of the potential rulings the Supreme Court might make. If the Supreme Court dismisses this application as improvidently granted, or if it had simply denied the writ application in the first place, it would leave, or would have left, in place the 9th Circuit ruling that would have been controlling throughout that circuit. That is simply the nature of our court system, and has nothing to do with what the 9th Circuit's ruling was or who does or doesn't like it.






Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18203 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

The circumstances surrounding when those 16,000 same sex marriages occurred isn't really important. What is important is that those 16,000 same sex marriages were really invalidated upon the passage of Prop 8 and it took an improper ruling by the California Supreme Court based on sympathy for all those same sex couples who got married for those 16,000 same sex marriages to be still considered valid in California.


Changing the law after the fact would not invalidate marriages that occurred before the law went into effect and were legal when they occurred. The law can't retroactively invalidate someone's legally contracted marriage. For instance, if bestiality were suddenly outlawed in California, it would not retroactively invalidate your marriage or make your wife a criminal.

quote:

I know that when I voted in favor of Proposition 8 I was voting with the understanding that if Prop 8 passed then all of the same sex marriages in California would be immediately invalidated.


As usual, you were wrong. It's your own fault for not educating yourself about the issues. Or anything else, it seems.

quote:

The voters of California who approved Prop 8 will remember what was done to our vote.


Most of the voters of California who approved Prop 8 can't remember to wipe their own asses, let alone the intricacies of a complicated legal case.



This post was edited on 3/28 at 11:55 am


Back to top
Newbomb Turk
Navy Fan
perfectanschlagen
Member since May 2008
9961 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

No. Any of those district courts could issue a ruling that binds the whole state. The ruling would only be a CONTROLLING LEGAL PRECEDENT in that one district, but its order in this case applies to the whole state.


Wrong. In actuality, a federal district court's ruling only BINDS the parties to that case. It doesn't bind the rest of the state. Now, while the brother/sister judges in that district aren't bound by that ruling, presumably they'll treat it as precedent since it came out of the same district.






Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3448 posts
 Online 

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:


I don't care what matters to the voters of California.


That's obvious but since I am one of the voters who approved Prop 8 I care about what matters to the voters of California.

quote:

I'm just refuting the idiotic notion that dismissing the appeal for lack of standing and refusing to grant the writ without hearing it are the same thing. They're not. There are very different consequences from each.


It's not an "idiotic notion" to Californians who voted for Prop 8. Dismissing the appeal for lack of standing or refusing to grant the writ without hearing results in the same thing for us.

Our vote is overturned and same sex marriage is legal in California.

quote:

That is not a problem for the Supreme Court to fix. The State of California has chosen not to appeal a court ruling against it. The Supreme Court has no right to force it to, nor does it have the authority to let some other party that does not have standing do so on its behalf.


I didn't say it was a problem the SCOTUS can fix.

I just pointed out that because Brown and Harris did that in order to thwart the will of the voters of California then it will look bad for any court that dismisses the case based on a lack of standing.

Why are you having such a difficult time understanding that, counselor?

quote:

By making ANY ruling (other than dismissing for lack of standing), the lower courts implicitly found that the parties bringing the case to them had standing.


Maybe implicitly but not explicitly.

quote:

No. The law was still enacted by the State of California. California simply allows popular referendum to be one of the mechanisms by which it enacts its laws. Whether by vote of the legislature and signature of the governor, or by any other mechanism the state allows, it was still enacted by the State of California.


And who is the State of California, counselor?

Is it just the representitives of the people of California or is it the people of California?

In California, when the legislators won't enact a law that the majority of the people of California want enacted then the people of California have the right to enact that law by placing it on the ballot through the initiative process and approving it by a majority vote.

In the case of Prop 8 the voters of California enacted the law not the legislators of California.

quote:

The direct impact that is needed in a legal case is not necessarily the same as you would call a direct impact in ordinary conversation. Sure, who gets elected to public office has an impact on me. How much I am taxed and how the tax money is spent has an effect on me. If my neighbors are screaming at each other and fighting every night, keeping me awake, then whether they get divorced certainly affects me. However, I am not directly affected by these. I would have no standing to challenge the outcome of an election if I wasn't one of the candidates just because I voted in the election. I would have no standing to challenge the government's decision to spend public funds on something I don't like just because I paid taxes. I would have no standing to file a divorce case for my neighbors just because their fighting is disturbing my sleep.


As I just explained to you, it was the people of California not the Legislators of California who enacted Prop 8 through the initiative process. Therefore, the people of California are directly affected by the ruling of the SCOTUS and if the Governor and Attorney General refuse to do their legally mandated duty to represent the people of California in court then the people of California have a right to be represented in court by the counselor of their choice.

That's what I'd be arguing in court if I was the attorney representing the voters of California who approved Prop 8.

I think based on the unique set of circumstance of the Governor and Attorney General refusing to defend Prop 8 in court and that a ruling to dismiss the case on a lack of standing will overturn the vote of the people of California, the SCOTUS will not dismiss the case on a lack of standing.

Now we'll just have to wait and see who is correct, counselor.














Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3448 posts
 Online 

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:


Well, actually, that ruling from the 9th Circuit happened before the voters of Washington approved same-sex marriage and was controlling precedent at the time of the vote, so your chronology there is wrong. In a sense, voters in Washington went into that referendum with their eyes open, at least nominally aware that if they approved same-sex marriage, they would not be able to change their minds later.


I wasn't referring to Washington or Prop 8 specifically.

I was just making the observation that if the voters of a state approve same sex marriage then the supporters of same sex marriage support that vote and want the courts to rule that vote can never be changed but if the voters of a state disapprove same sex marriage then the supporters of same sex marriage want to change the vote of the people by getting the courts to overturn the vote on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

That's a game where if you win I lose and if I win I lose so I refuse to play in that game.







Back to top
  Replies (0)
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3448 posts
 Online 

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:


Changing the law after the fact would not invalidate marriages that occurred before the law went into effect and were legal when they occurred.


BS.

Prop 8 explicitly states, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".

That means all same sex marriages whether they were performed before or after Prop 8 was approved are not valid or recognized in California.

That was the intent of Prop 8 and the voters were told that was the intent of Prop 8.

That's what I was told and that's why I voted for Prop 8.

It was just a BS ruling by the California Supreme Court so they wouldn't have to invalidate the 16,000 same sex marriages that occurred before the passage of Prop 8.

We the voters knew what we were voting for and we knew we were voting to invalidate those 16,000 same sex marriages as well as not recognize any future same sex marriages.

quote:

The law can't retroactively invalidate someone's legally contracted marriage. For instance, if bestiality were suddenly outlawed in California, it would not retroactively invalidate your marriage or make your wife a criminal.


BS.

Laws can be passed that invalidate legal contracts.

If California passed a law tomorrow saying that you had to be 21 in order to have a valid driver's license then all the driver's licenses of people under 21 would no longer be valid.

The law doesn't have to explicitly state that driver's licenses already issued to people under 21 are also now invalid.

The intent of the law is obvious and therefore explicit language does not have to be included.

However, this is the same tactic that was first used to try to allow same sex couples to marry.

Since people have always recognized that "marriage" meant a union of a man and a woman there was no need to explicitly state it was a union of a man and a woman in any law that dealt with "marriage".

Then same sex supporters attempted to redefine "marriage" to mean "any two consenting adults regardless of gender" which would mean any laws dealing with "marriage" that did not explicitly define "marriage" as a union of a man and woman in the law itself would now include two people of the same gender.

quote:

As usual, you were wrong. It's your own fault for not educating yourself about the issues. Or anything else, it seems.


BS.

The clear and simple language of Prop 8 stated that only marriages between a man and a woman would be valid and recognized in California.

That means any marriage between two people of the same sex would not be valid or recognized in California.

That's what Prop 8 said and that's what we the voters were told it meant.

The Court just made a BS ruling in order to allow those 16,000 same sex couple to still be considered married.

quote:

Most of the voters of California who approved Prop 8 can't remember to wipe their own asses, let alone the intricacies of a complicated legal case.


The voters of California who approved Prop 8 will remember that we wiped the asses of the supporters of same sex marriage and that the supporters of same sex marriage were lucky that the California Supreme Court ruled based on sympathy rather than the clear and simple language of Prop 8.








Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18203 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

Wrong. In actuality, a federal district court's ruling only BINDS the parties to that case. It doesn't bind the rest of the state


The state was a party to the case. Just because the state extends beyond the venue where the case is pending doesn't mean the court's order doesn't bind the state. The whole state.

quote:

Now, while the brother/sister judges in that district aren't bound by that ruling, presumably they'll treat it as precedent since it came out of the same district.


Presumably you mean the other districts, otherwise it wouldn't make sense. The district in which the ruling occurred would be bound, sort of, by its own precedent (although a court can reverse its own precedent so it's not technically controlling). But, for instance, a lower court within that district, like a bankruptcy court or other court of specialized jurisdiction, would be bound by the ruling.

Judges in other districts within the 9th Circuit (or elsewhere) could assign as much, or as little, weight to that district court ruling as they wanted to.






Back to top
Newbomb Turk
Navy Fan
perfectanschlagen
Member since May 2008
9961 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


You're 100% WRONG.

Think about it this way -- If there were two cases -- one in the Southern District and one in the Northern District -- and they came out with different results -- AND THE SUPREME COURT LATER RULED THAT IT DIDN'T HAVE JURISDICTION ON THE STANDING ISSUE -- then which decision would be binding on the entire state???



This post was edited on 3/28 at 1:44 pm


Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18203 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

It's not an "idiotic notion" to Californians who voted for Prop 8. Dismissing the appeal for lack of standing or refusing to grant the writ without hearing results in the same thing for us.


But you brought up that point to support your argument that the Supreme Court would not agree to hear the case and then throw it out for lack of standing. The Supreme Court very well might, and frequently does, do that, and they wouldn't give a rat's arse what the voters of California think.

quote:

I didn't say it was a problem the SCOTUS can fix.


You said they should. Doesn't that imply that you think they can?

quote:

And who is the State of California, counselor? Is it just the representitives of the people of California or is it the people of California?


The State of California is a legal fiction, like a corporation, that, while not an individual person, is given a status similar to a person. Like any such entity, since it is not an actual person, it is represented and enabled to act through certain designated individuals, whether that be a CEO, board of directors, governor, attorney general, etc. For purposes of legal standing to institute a case on behalf of the entity, an individual must be one of those designated people through whom the fictional "person" is authorized to act. In the case of the State of California, when a law of the state is challenged in court, that designated individual is the attorney general.






Back to top
Antonio Moss
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2006
28821 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

Prop 8 didn't even go the the California Supreme Court. It was appealed from the Ninth District Court of Appeals directly to the SCOTUS.




No fricking way!

An application for writ from a Federal Appellate Circuit didn't make a pit stop to a state Supreme Court? Crazy.






Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18203 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

As I just explained to you, it was the people of California not the Legislators of California who enacted Prop 8 through the initiative process
\

And I explained to you that that does not matter. The State of California has multiple mechanisms for enacting its laws. Legislative action and ballot initiatives are both used to enact laws of the State of California. No matter which mechanism is used, the State of California is still enacting the law.

quote:

That's what I'd be arguing in court if I was the attorney representing the voters of California who approved Prop 8.


Which is probably one of the MANY reasons they didn't hire you to represent them.

quote:

I think based on the unique set of circumstance of the Governor and Attorney General refusing to defend Prop 8 in court and that a ruling to dismiss the case on a lack of standing will overturn the vote of the people of California, the SCOTUS will not dismiss the case on a lack of standing. Now we'll just have to wait and see who is correct, counselor.


I won't be correct because I haven't made a prediction. I have made a very shaky guess that they will dismiss on standing, but that is all it is. They may find that there is standing. So what? I have never said the applicants here do not have standing. I have said they might not. I have said it's a tricky issue. I have said standing is very questionable in this case. Apparently, the court agrees because THEY HIRED THEIR OWN LAWYER TO ARGUE THE ISSUE TO THEM. And yes, we will see what the court does.






Back to top
Antonio Moss
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2006
28821 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

In actuality, a federal district court's ruling only BINDS the parties to that case.


Not quite. A federal district court decision is mandatory (unless stated otherwise) for lower specialized federal courts in it's district. It's persuasive for other districts and other judges in its district.

It holds no authority (theoretically) over state courts.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
GumboPot
LSU Fan
Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2009
24100 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


Quick question for you guys on DOMA. Could DOMA be considered tax policy like Obamacare was (thus constitutional)? After all, marriage status is an important part of tax policy.





Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18203 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

Prop 8 explicitly states, "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". That means all same sex marriages whether they were performed before or after Prop 8 was approved are not valid or recognized in California.


Nope. Laws generally do not have retroactive effect, particularly if retroactive application would deprive someone of an already vested right.

quote:

That was the intent of Prop 8 and the voters were told that was the intent of Prop 8.


Sorry to hear the proponents of Prop 8 lied to you. Also sorry you were dumb enough to buy it. Nevertheless, Prop 8 would not have, and could not have, retroactively stripped legally married people of the legal rights that they already had.

Even if Prop 8's ban on gay marriage had been affirmed as constitutional, it would not have been given retroactive effect to dissolve already legally contracted marriages.

quote:

It was just a BS ruling by the California Supreme Court so they wouldn't have to invalidate the 16,000 same sex marriages that occurred before the passage of Prop 8.


If the California Supreme Court had to rule that the law did not have retroactive effect, then there had to be some pretty stupid frickers taking it that far on that question. That was a slam dunk, and certainly not a BS ruling. Ruling otherwise would have been such a ridiculously and obviously erroneous ruling as to amount to judicial misconduct.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18203 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

You're 100% WRONG. Think about it this way -- If there were two cases -- one in the Southern District and one in the Northern District -- and they came out with different results -- AND THE SUPREME COURT LATER RULED THAT IT DIDN'T HAVE JURISDICTION ON THE STANDING ISSUE -- then which decision would be binding on the entire state???



If you can't follow the argument, then it's best to stay out of it. Of course, another case involving another anti-gay marriage law (hypothetically enacted in the future), being heard in another district within California could result in a different ruling. However, the mere fact that California extends through multiple federal court districts does not mean that you can't sue the whole State of California in federal district court and get a ruling from that court that binds the whole state.

If California denied a marriage license to a gay couple in another district, the state would be in contempt of the Northern District's ruling that the state must issue licenses to same-sex couples. The people wanting a license would not have to file another suit in another district.



This post was edited on 3/28 at 2:14 pm


Back to top
  Replies (0)
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18203 posts

re: NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling


quote:

No fricking way! An application for writ from a Federal Appellate Circuit didn't make a pit stop to a state Supreme Court? Crazy.


I know, right? Those lawyers and judges obviously didn't attend the DawgfaninCA & Newbomb Turk School of Law!






Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top