NBC : SCOTUS not prepared to issue sweeping gay rights ruling | Page 5 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18386 posts

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


quote:

Let's analyse this. The SCOTUS dismisses the case for lack of standing - Same sex marriage is legal in California. The SCOTUS refuses to hear the case - Same sex marriage is legal in California. What's the difference? I'll answer my own question to save you the time. Nothing!!!


Still rockin that law degree! Awesome.

Wrong again.

Dismiss the case for lack of standing - district court ruling is the only precedent...much broader basis for striking down the law gives more reasons to strike down a gay marriage ban, BUT the precedent is only controlling in that one federal court district. (So, for instance, the state could pass another gay marriage ban, and if another federal district court within California were to hear the case, it could rule that the new law is valid even if that contradicted the earlier ruling by the other district court). Future cases or appeals brought by non-government parties probably thrown out for lack of standing before they are heard.

Refuse to hear the case - 9th Circuit ruling is the precedent...much narrower basis for striking down the law gives fewer reasons to strike down a gay marriage ban, BUT the precedent is controlling throughout the 9th Circuit, which includes Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Arizona. (So, for instance, Washington, which just voted to legalize gay marriage, could never outlaw it again in the future because the 9th Circuit's ruling was that the state can't take away the right after it has previously granted it). Future cases or appeals brought by non-government parties maybe or maybe not thrown out for lack of standing, Supreme Court silent on the issue.

If you don't see differences, then...well, I'm not surprised.

quote:

It's one thing for the SCOTUS to overturn Prop 8 because they find it unconstitutional but if they overturn it on a BS legal technicality


Whether the person bringing the action has a right to bring it is not a "BS legal technicality". It is pretty much a bedrock requirement of any case.

quote:

I don't need you to lecture me about the legal duty of the SCOTUS.


Apparently you do because you still think it matters that

quote:

it won't look good for the SCOTUS


For the third time, it's not their job to "look good". It's their job to correctly apply the law no matter what anybody thinks or how it looks.

quote:

Usually, a Governor and Attorney General don't refuse to defend a law that the people passed so this is a special case where they do refuse to defend it because they are both oppose to it. The SCOTUS should and can take that into consideration.


Well, that's what the standing argument in this case is about, isn't it? We'll see what happens.

quote:

That's a criminal case. This is a civil case.


A distinction without a difference. The point is that the law assigns to particular government officials the duty and right to represent it in various cases. The failure of those officials to do so does not authorize anybody who wants to to jump in and do it on their behalf. Here, the plaintiffs may not be just "anybody who wants to", so they may be found to have standing. We will see.

quote:

their vote is directly affected by the Court's decision


Nope. When a law is found unconstitutional, the government entity that enacted the law is directly affected. The people whose conduct the law regulates are directly affected. Every voter is not directly affected.



This post was edited on 3/27 at 5:26 pm


Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
52890 posts
 Online 

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


quote:

Nope. When a law is found unconstitutional, the government entity that enacted the law is directly affected. The people whose conduct the law regulates are directly affected. Every voter is not directly affected
If a popular vote is negated, every voter is affected.






Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18386 posts

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


quote:

If a popular vote is negated, every voter is affected


It's not enough to be somehow vaguely affected. There has to be a direct effect, actually a direct harm. Voters are not directly harmed when what or who they vote for doesn't win.



This post was edited on 3/27 at 5:31 pm


Back to top
NC_Tigah
LSU Fan
Member since Sep 2003
52890 posts
 Online 

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


quote:

It's not enough to be somehow vaguely affected. There has to be a direct effect, actually a direct harm. Voters are not directly harmed when what or who they vote for doesn't win.
Were that true, the OP case would never have gone to court.






Back to top
Toddy
Ole Miss Fan
Atlanta
Member since Jul 2010
20634 posts

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


quote:

Nuts4LSU


Nuts, are you an attorney? You are very knowledgeable about this stuff. I really enjoy reading your posts.






Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3897 posts

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


quote:

Wrong again.

Dismiss the case for lack of standing - district court ruling is the only precedent...much broader basis for striking down the law gives more reasons to strike down a gay marriage ban, BUT the precedent is only controlling in that one federal court district. (So, for instance, the state could pass another gay marriage ban, and if another federal district court within California were to hear the case, it could rule that the new law is valid even if that contradicted the earlier ruling by the other district court). Future cases or appeals brought by non-government parties probably thrown out for lack of standing before they are heard.

Refuse to hear the case - 9th Circuit ruling is the precedent...much narrower basis for striking down the law gives fewer reasons to strike down a gay marriage ban, BUT the precedent is controlling throughout the 9th Circuit, which includes Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Arizona. (So, for instance, Washington, which just voted to legalize gay marriage, could never outlaw it again in the future because the 9th Circuit's ruling was that the state can't take away the right after it has previously granted it). Future cases or appeals brought by non-government parties maybe or maybe not thrown out for lack of standing, Supreme Court silent on the issue.

If you don't see differences, then...well, I'm not surprised.


Apparently you don't seem to understand all that matters to the voters of California who approved Prop 8 is whether their vote is thrown out. Whether it is thrown out on a BS legal technicality because the two politicians who are mandated to defend the law in court refuse to defend it in order the thwart he will of the people or whether the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, the result is that the vote of the people who approved Prop 8 is thrown out.

We don't care how one or the other may affect future rulings in the rest of the states in the Ninth District.

We care about how it affects the future of California and whether the will of the people is thwarted by a BS legal technicality or by a refusal to hear the case the effect is the same to the voters of California who approved Prop 8.



quote:

Whether the person bringing the action has a right to bring it is not a "BS legal technicality". It is pretty much a bedrock requirement of any case.


That's not what makes it a BS legal technicality.

What makes it a BS legal technicality is that 2 politicians who opposed Prop 8 thought they could thwart the will of the voters by refusing to do their mandated job of defending Prop 8 in court. If they succeed based on that legal technicality then it is a BS legal technicality and just tyranny of the minority.

However, it is interesting that the lower court refused to rule on the standing issue and passed it up to SCOTUS.

quote:

For the third time, it's not their job to "look good". It's their job to correctly apply the law no matter what anybody thinks or how it looks.


I didn't say or imply that it is the Court's job to "look Good". I'm just pointing out that they won't look good if they dismiss the case on lack of standing.

Maybe that's the reason why the lower court decided not to rule on the standing issue and instead passed it up to the SCOTUS.

quote:

Well, that's what the standing argument in this case is about, isn't it? We'll see what happens.


That's correct. I just went out on a limb and said that I think they won't dismiss the case based on a lack of standing. Others can think differently. We'll see what happens.

quote:

The point is that the law assigns to particular government officials the duty and right to represent it in various cases. The failure of those officials to do so does not authorize anybody who wants to to jump in and do it on their behalf. Here, the plaintiffs may not be just "anybody who wants to", so they may be found to have standing. We will see.


That's basically all I am saying. Since the plaintiff is the group who put Prop 8 on the ballot and they are defending Prop 8 on behalf of the voters who approved Prop 8, I think the SCOTUS will not dismiss the case on a lack of standing.

quote:

Nope. When a law is found unconstitutional, the government entity that enacted the law is directly affected. The people whose conduct the law regulates are directly affected. Every voter is not directly affected.


Since this was an initiative ballot measure, the "government entity" that enacted the law was the people and the ruling of the SCOTUS could negate their vote which couldn't more directly affect the voters.







Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3897 posts

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


quote:


Nuts, are you an attorney? You are very knowledgeable about this stuff. I really enjoy reading your posts.


He's not an attorney. He just tries to talk like an attorney.








Back to top
  Replies (0)
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3897 posts

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


quote:


It's not enough to be somehow vaguely affected. There has to be a direct effect, actually a direct harm. Voters are not directly harmed when what or who they vote for doesn't win.


The people who worked to put Prop 8 on the ballot and the voters who approved Prop 8 are only vaguely affected?

This was an initiative ballot measure to amend the California Constitution and if the SCOTUS rules to overturn Prop 8 then all that work to get Prop 8 on the ballot and the votes of the voters who approved Prop 8 will be negated.

The people who worked to put Prop 8 on the ballot and the voters who approved Prop 8 can't be more directly affected or harmed than that.






This post was edited on 3/27 at 8:39 pm


Back to top
  Replies (0)
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3897 posts

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


quote:

I believe they defended it in lower courts, but didn't feel like the needed to bring it all the way to the supreme court. I don't think they are obligated to do so.


Brown and Harris refused to defend Prop 8 in any court.







Back to top
SammyTiger
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
10215 posts
 Online 

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


quote:

Brown and Harris refused to defend Prop 8 in any court.


That is correct. I had google, then just looked up the case on wikipedia.






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


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.





Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3897 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.


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.







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:

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.



Seriously .... Google is your friend.






Back to top
Toddy
Ole Miss Fan
Atlanta
Member since Jul 2010
20634 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.



That's the first I've heard of this. DO you have a link for this?

Also, if they just decide to dismiss the case, which they very well may do, the NInth Circuit's ruling would be intact. And I would assume it would apply to all of the states in the NInth Circuit. (Meaning that the state of Washington could not ever ban gay marriage , because the gist of the ruling is that states cannot take away a right once it's been granted)







Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3897 posts

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


quote:


Seriously .... Google is your friend.


Thanks for correcting my mistake.

I remember that now.

That's when the California Supreme Court claimed since Prop 8 had no language in it declaring that all of the same sex marriages performed before Prop 8 was passed were invalid, the Court refused to annul the 16,000 same sex marriages performed after Emperor Newsom declared that same sex couples could get married in San Francisco .

That ruling was a crock of shite.

Prop 8 said that only marriages between a man and a woman would be recognized in California. That means all marriages including marriages in California.

All of the same sex marriages in California performed before the passage of Prop 8 should have been invalidated by the Court.

That was a cop out ruling by the California Supreme Court to appease the supporters of same sex marriage.

If they had made the proper ruling and declared all of those same sex marriages invalid then the supporters of same sex marriage would have rioted or at least drowned the whole state with their tears.

The California Supreme Court made that ruling based on sympathy for the same sex couples who would have been so disappointed if the Court ruled the way they should have.

Again, thanks for correcting my mistake. I thought it was the Court of Appeals who made that ruling and I am not a googlehead who has to google all of my information. I try to actually remember things so once in a while I will get a fact wrong.





This post was edited on 3/28 at 10:36 am


Back to top
DawgfaninCa
Georgia Fan
San Francisco, California
Member since Sep 2012
3897 posts

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


quote:

And I would assume it would apply to all of the states in the NInth Circuit. (Meaning that the state of Washington could not ever ban gay marriage , because the gist of the ruling is that states cannot take away a right once it's been granted)


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.

That's pretty slick.

You want to have your cake and eat it too.









Back to top
Toddy
Ole Miss Fan
Atlanta
Member since Jul 2010
20634 posts

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


quote:

That's when the California Supreme Court claimed since Prop 8 had no language in it declaring that all of the same sex marriages performed before Prop 8 was passed were invalid, the Court refused to annul the 16,000 same sex marriages performed after Emperor Newsom declared that same sex couples could get married in San Francisco .



Wrong. That had nothing to do with Gavin Newsome. The Calif Supreme Court had legalized gay marriage and that's when the 16,000 couples got married in the six months prior to Prop 8's passage. Gavin Newsome had granted same sex marriage licenses prior to all of that and I don't think those were ever validated. Two different situations.






Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18386 posts

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


quote:

Were that true, the OP case would never have gone to court.


The OP case? You mean the Prop 8 case? Why would it never have gone to court? The plaintiffs were gay couples wanting to get married. Their conduct (getting married) was regulated (actually prohibited) by the law. They were directly affected by the law and had standing to challenge it.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18386 posts

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


quote:

Nuts, are you an attorney? You are very knowledgeable about this stuff. I really enjoy reading your posts.


Yes. Thanks!






Back to top
Nuts4LSU
LSU Fan
Washington, DC
Member since Oct 2003
18386 posts

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


quote:

Apparently you don't seem to understand all that matters to the voters of California who approved Prop 8 is whether their vote is thrown out.


I don't care what matters to the voters of California. I'm just refuting the idiotic notion that dismissing the application 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.

quote:

What makes it a BS legal technicality is that 2 politicians who opposed Prop 8 thought they could thwart the will of the voters by refusing to do their mandated job of defending Prop 8 in court.


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.

quote:

However, it is interesting that the lower court refused to rule on the standing issue and passed it up to SCOTUS.


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.

quote:

Since this was an initiative ballot measure, the "government entity" that enacted the law was the people


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.

quote:

the ruling of the SCOTUS could negate their vote which couldn't more directly affect the voters.


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.



This post was edited on 3/28 at 11:45 am


Back to top


Back to top