Baker v. Nelson: The case y'all don't want to talk about

[bendog]

btw, I'm guessing they punt, but in effect that upholds prop 8.

And, their lack of procreation science, and Alito's comment "this is as new as cell phones and the internte" JFC I thought we were in the House of the Cardinals with a bucnh of aged gay men who've been celibate for 50 years. LOL

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They won't. I heard Kennedy. If they take the case, we win.

You heard Kennedy what?

I'm listening to the oral arguments right now.

***************************
I thought it was funny when one of the Justices asked about those over 55 being not able to have children and the lawyer started out (and I paraphrase) "Well one of them is likely to remain fertile..." and then got cut off.

Psst - Mr. Lawyer - one of the two people being fertile does not mean the couple is fertile.

I heard Kennedy's questions during oral arguments. He's the deciding vote and if they take the case (which I don't think they will), they will strike down Prop 8 in CA in a 5-4 decision.

I did read the exchange about 55 year olds procreating.

No one knows who a deciding vote will be. Guesses usually turn out to be terrible in cases like this one. Even after 'hearing' and 'reading' oral arguments.

What did you and others 'guess' after oral arguments in the Obamacare case?

 

[bendog]

You bendog, on record saying the SCOTUS will uphold Prop 8?

Well, it's just my guess. I'm not putting cred on that outcome, and in fact believe it is incorrect. I just get the feeling Roberts is pissed the issue is even before the Court, Alito and Scalia were openly hostile (and hypocritical) in questions they asked, Thomas will follow Scalia .... and Kennedy seemed ... not inclined to open up something nationally like Loving. I just don't see Kennedy "creating a new right" with a 5-4 decision.

Scalia asked Olsen "when did this right come into existence?" Olson parried "when did the Loving right come into existence." Scalia growled about questions answering questions, but then said when the 14th amend became law.

Welllllllll, doesn't that beg the question about what took so damn long for the Lovings to get their right? Roughly 80 years passed. So, the question won't go away. At some pt there will be a supermaj of states approving civil unions or something, and Miss and Ala and SC will be whistling Dixie in the dark.

Thomas does NOT follow Scalia. that myth makes you look foolish. try not to reuse it. This is NOT about a NEW RIGHT. It is about extending a right. Giving blacks and women the vote was not creating a new right.

The SCOTUS going all the way back to the Marshall Court, has been careful not to get too far ahead of the public on controversial political issues. That is factual history. Would extending to same-sex couples, the fundamental right to marry (court ruled it fundamental), be too controversial and harm the Court?

Many social conservatives openly despise the Court, so why fear that happening? Social Conservatives need to start getting back to basics.

The right of gays/same-sex couples to be afforded state recognition of marriage is the issue, not the right to marry. Gays have been getting married by progressive minsters and in private ceremonies since at least the 1970s that I know of.

The issue is one of the state having an interest in recognizing same-sex marriages

Thomas and Scalia have very different views on law enforcement cases. But on this, Thomas is following Scalia.

And don't lecture me with semantics about new or exending rights. It makes you look arrogant and tightassed. Please dont do it again.

 

[martybegan]

Driver's Licenses aren't really accepted under full faith and credit. If you check your DMV laws you will find that if you move from one state to another you have to get a new license in the new state.

If you are visiting Virginia and you hold a valid license from another state, your license is valid temporarily because Virginia Statute says it is. Even if your old license would be valid for years, you must get a Virginia Drivers License if you move here, a replacement must be obtained within 60 days.

LIS > Code of Virginia > 46.2-307
LIS > Code of Virginia > 46.2-308


>>>>

You can drive through whatever state you want to with whatever other state's liscense. I dont think the founders thought that full faith and credit applied to people who actually moved into a given state, and then decided they didnt like the laws there. Nor did they assume that a person couldnt just haul up and move out if a state made laws not to thier liking.

My question is that as long as you dont live in Mississippi, why would you care if they want to ban gay marriage there?

and before you go to the gun argument, Arms are specifically protected under the consitution, to protect marriage the same way you have to jump through multiple court intepreted hoops.

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right with the Constitution as justification. Would you deny me a fishing or gun license for being gay? Why a marriage license?

When you get a fish or gun liscense your being gay does not change your fishing or your possesion of said firearm. With same sex marriage in these two cases you are asking to eliminate hundreds of years of State precedent with regards to the marriage contract, and not via legislative action (which is the correct way to go) but via judical fiat.

By not going the route of legislation across all the states, you create a classic clauswitzian situation, where there will be peace, but not resolution of the conflict. We will end up with the same situation we have with abortion, where one side has "won" but the other side has not capitulated.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

btw, I'm guessing they punt, but in effect that upholds prop 8.

And, their lack of procreation science, and Alito's comment "this is as new as cell phones and the internte" JFC I thought we were in the House of the Cardinals with a bucnh of aged gay men who've been celibate for 50 years. LOL

They just may rule the bigots have no standing by dismissing the case. This will keep Judge Walker's ruling in place.

 

[Seawytch]

So a CCW permit holder in Texas can carry his gun in New York?

I'm sorry you have a comprehension problem. You could only equate marriage laws with CC laws if my CA CC was good in all 50 states and yours wasn't.

Scale matters not. If equal protection is without limits, which is what you are proposing, someone with a state issued CCW should be able to use it anywhere, and no legislative action nor even state consitutional action should be able to change that.

Actually it does. You can't argue discrimination because the CC does not make any distinctions based on characteristics, whereas a marriage license does.

My gay CC is treated the same as your straight CC in every state. My marriage license is not treated the same.

 

[bendog]

You heard Kennedy what?

I'm listening to the oral arguments right now.

***************************
I thought it was funny when one of the Justices asked about those over 55 being not able to have children and the lawyer started out (and I paraphrase) "Well one of them is likely to remain fertile..." and then got cut off.

Psst - Mr. Lawyer - one of the two people being fertile does not mean the couple is fertile.

I heard Kennedy's questions during oral arguments. He's the deciding vote and if they take the case (which I don't think they will), they will strike down Prop 8 in CA in a 5-4 decision.

I did read the exchange about 55 year olds procreating.

No one knows who a deciding vote will be. Guesses usually turn out to be terrible in cases like this one. Even after 'hearing' and 'reading' oral arguments.

What did you and others 'guess' after oral arguments in the Obamacare case?

Well, I still guessed it was a legal tax, but I still thought they'd affirm on commerce. I thought Roberts would be more persuasive with his collegues in walking them back of legislative issues.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well, it's just my guess. I'm not putting cred on that outcome, and in fact believe it is incorrect. I just get the feeling Roberts is pissed the issue is even before the Court, Alito and Scalia were openly hostile (and hypocritical) in questions they asked, Thomas will follow Scalia .... and Kennedy seemed ... not inclined to open up something nationally like Loving. I just don't see Kennedy "creating a new right" with a 5-4 decision.

Scalia asked Olsen "when did this right come into existence?" Olson parried "when did the Loving right come into existence." Scalia growled about questions answering questions, but then said when the 14th amend became law.

Welllllllll, doesn't that beg the question about what took so damn long for the Lovings to get their right? Roughly 80 years passed. So, the question won't go away. At some pt there will be a supermaj of states approving civil unions or something, and Miss and Ala and SC will be whistling Dixie in the dark.

Thomas does NOT follow Scalia. that myth makes you look foolish. try not to reuse it. This is NOT about a NEW RIGHT. It is about extending a right. Giving blacks and women the vote was not creating a new right.

The SCOTUS going all the way back to the Marshall Court, has been careful not to get too far ahead of the public on controversial political issues. That is factual history. Would extending to same-sex couples, the fundamental right to marry (court ruled it fundamental), be too controversial and harm the Court?

Many social conservatives openly despise the Court, so why fear that happening? Social Conservatives need to start getting back to basics.

The right of gays/same-sex couples to be afforded state recognition of marriage is the issue, not the right to marry. Gays have been getting married by progressive minsters and in private ceremonies since at least the 1970s that I know of.

The issue is one of the state having an interest in recognizing same-sex marriages

Thomas and Scalia have very different views on law enforcement cases. But on this, Thomas is following Scalia.

Thomas may agree with Scalia, he does not follow Scalia. And the area where Justice Thomas shines is not in the area of Law Enforcement cases.

 

[Seawytch]

You can drive through whatever state you want to with whatever other state's liscense. I dont think the founders thought that full faith and credit applied to people who actually moved into a given state, and then decided they didnt like the laws there. Nor did they assume that a person couldnt just haul up and move out if a state made laws not to thier liking.

My question is that as long as you dont live in Mississippi, why would you care if they want to ban gay marriage there?

and before you go to the gun argument, Arms are specifically protected under the consitution, to protect marriage the same way you have to jump through multiple court intepreted hoops.

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right with the Constitution as justification. Would you deny me a fishing or gun license for being gay? Why a marriage license?

When you get a fish or gun liscense your being gay does not change your fishing or your possesion of said firearm. With same sex marriage in these two cases you are asking to eliminate hundreds of years of State precedent with regards to the marriage contract, and not via legislative action (which is the correct way to go) but via judical fiat.

By not going the route of legislation across all the states, you create a classic clauswitzian situation, where there will be peace, but not resolution of the conflict. We will end up with the same situation we have with abortion, where one side has "won" but the other side has not capitulated.

Just like we eliminated "hundreds of years of precedent" when we allowed women to vote, blacks to vote, blacks to marry whites, blacks to be educated with whites, etc. we're those institutions changed when we allowed more people access to them.

 

[martybegan]

I'm sorry you have a comprehension problem. You could only equate marriage laws with CC laws if my CA CC was good in all 50 states and yours wasn't.

Scale matters not. If equal protection is without limits, which is what you are proposing, someone with a state issued CCW should be able to use it anywhere, and no legislative action nor even state consitutional action should be able to change that.

Actually it does. You can't argue discrimination because the CC does not make any distinctions based on characteristics, whereas a marriage license does.

My gay CC is treated the same as your straight CC in every state. My marriage license is not treated the same.

A CC does not have a gender component, your marriage does, and the gender component of your marriage flies in the face of 200 years of legal precedent in this country that didnt even consider having marriages between same sex couples.

The way to change this is via legislative action, not judicial fiat.

 

[Seawytch]

You heard Kennedy what?

I'm listening to the oral arguments right now.

***************************
I thought it was funny when one of the Justices asked about those over 55 being not able to have children and the lawyer started out (and I paraphrase) "Well one of them is likely to remain fertile..." and then got cut off.

Psst - Mr. Lawyer - one of the two people being fertile does not mean the couple is fertile.

I heard Kennedy's questions during oral arguments. He's the deciding vote and if they take the case (which I don't think they will), they will strike down Prop 8 in CA in a 5-4 decision.

I did read the exchange about 55 year olds procreating.

No one knows who a deciding vote will be. Guesses usually turn out to be terrible in cases like this one. Even after 'hearing' and 'reading' oral arguments.

What did you and others 'guess' after oral arguments in the Obamacare case?

I guessed right in the ACA case with the exception being who made the deciding vote. I will amend my guess and say 6 3 in favor of striking down Prop 8...if they take it.

 

[martybegan]

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right with the Constitution as justification. Would you deny me a fishing or gun license for being gay? Why a marriage license?

When you get a fish or gun liscense your being gay does not change your fishing or your possesion of said firearm. With same sex marriage in these two cases you are asking to eliminate hundreds of years of State precedent with regards to the marriage contract, and not via legislative action (which is the correct way to go) but via judical fiat.

By not going the route of legislation across all the states, you create a classic clauswitzian situation, where there will be peace, but not resolution of the conflict. We will end up with the same situation we have with abortion, where one side has "won" but the other side has not capitulated.

Just like we eliminated "hundreds of years of precedent" when we allowed women to vote, blacks to vote, blacks to marry whites, blacks to be educated with whites, etc. we're those institutions changed when we allowed more people access to them.

Women were given the vote via an amendment, the proper method of doing this. Blacks were given the vote and thier freedom via amendment, and the bloodiest war this nation has ever seen. All Jim Crow laws had thier basis on Plessey V. Fergueson, which was an abomination propogated by the very Court you are running to right now. ALL of your references are based on amendments that were passed to eliminate said restrictions IMPLICITLY, not derived from an amaglam of case law.

Again, I support legislative action on Gay Marriage, I just dont see it as a consitutional right the courts can impose on States that dont want it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=42949]bendog[/MENTION]

Jeffrey Rosen: The Supreme Court. Thomas is the ideological purist

Scalia told Thomas' biographer that Thomas would overturn any judicial precedent he disagreed with whereas Saclia himself would not.

Clarence Thomas is praised by many (this includes Breyer who taught this stuff), for his technical ability dealing with complicated regulatory issues.

Clarence Thomas is the most underrated Justice in my lifetime.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well, it's just my guess. I'm not putting cred on that outcome, and in fact believe it is incorrect. I just get the feeling Roberts is pissed the issue is even before the Court, Alito and Scalia were openly hostile (and hypocritical) in questions they asked, Thomas will follow Scalia .... and Kennedy seemed ... not inclined to open up something nationally like Loving. I just don't see Kennedy "creating a new right" with a 5-4 decision.

Scalia asked Olsen "when did this right come into existence?" Olson parried "when did the Loving right come into existence." Scalia growled about questions answering questions, but then said when the 14th amend became law.

Welllllllll, doesn't that beg the question about what took so damn long for the Lovings to get their right? Roughly 80 years passed. So, the question won't go away. At some pt there will be a supermaj of states approving civil unions or something, and Miss and Ala and SC will be whistling Dixie in the dark.

Thomas does NOT follow Scalia. that myth makes you look foolish. try not to reuse it. This is NOT about a NEW RIGHT. It is about extending a right. Giving blacks and women the vote was not creating a new right.

The SCOTUS going all the way back to the Marshall Court, has been careful not to get too far ahead of the public on controversial political issues. That is factual history. Would extending to same-sex couples, the fundamental right to marry (court ruled it fundamental), be too controversial and harm the Court?

Many social conservatives openly despise the Court, so why fear that happening? Social Conservatives need to start getting back to basics.

The right of gays/same-sex couples to be afforded state recognition of marriage is the issue, not the right to marry. Gays have been getting married by progressive minsters and in private ceremonies since at least the 1970s that I know of.

The issue is one of the state having an interest in recognizing same-sex marriages

Thomas and Scalia have very different views on law enforcement cases. But on this, Thomas is following Scalia.

And don't lecture me with semantics about new or exending rights. It makes you look arrogant and tightassed. Please dont do it again.

In law, semantics is king.
Extending a right is not creating a new one, no matter how you cut it, slice it, or dice it.

 

[Seawytch]

Scale matters not. If equal protection is without limits, which is what you are proposing, someone with a state issued CCW should be able to use it anywhere, and no legislative action nor even state consitutional action should be able to change that.

Actually it does. You can't argue discrimination because the CC does not make any distinctions based on characteristics, whereas a marriage license does.

My gay CC is treated the same as your straight CC in every state. My marriage license is not treated the same.

A CC does not have a gender component, your marriage does, and the gender component of your marriage flies in the face of 200 years of legal precedent in this country that didnt even consider having marriages between same sex couples.

The way to change this is via legislative action, not judicial fiat.

And I disagree. If interracial marriage had waited to be popular enough...it would have been long after the 1967 Loving v Virginia decision that it was passed.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I heard Kennedy's questions during oral arguments. He's the deciding vote and if they take the case (which I don't think they will), they will strike down Prop 8 in CA in a 5-4 decision.

I did read the exchange about 55 year olds procreating.

No one knows who a deciding vote will be. Guesses usually turn out to be terrible in cases like this one. Even after 'hearing' and 'reading' oral arguments.

What did you and others 'guess' after oral arguments in the Obamacare case?

I guessed right in the ACA case with the exception being who made the deciding vote. I will amend my guess and say 6 3 in favor of striking down Prop 8...if they take it.

What reasons did you give? You did not predict Roberts' reasoning

 

[martybegan]

Actually it does. You can't argue discrimination because the CC does not make any distinctions based on characteristics, whereas a marriage license does.

My gay CC is treated the same as your straight CC in every state. My marriage license is not treated the same.

A CC does not have a gender component, your marriage does, and the gender component of your marriage flies in the face of 200 years of legal precedent in this country that didnt even consider having marriages between same sex couples.

The way to change this is via legislative action, not judicial fiat.

And I disagree. If interracial marriage had waited to be popular enough...it would have been long after the 1967 Loving v Virginia decision that it was passed.

Race is a matter of differences in melanin and differences in cosmetic appearance. When it comes to same vs opposite sex marriage the gender issue is in no way shape or form even comparable to the race comparison.

It is up to the legislature to decide when to change these requirements, not the courts.

 

[Seawytch]

No one knows who a deciding vote will be. Guesses usually turn out to be terrible in cases like this one. Even after 'hearing' and 'reading' oral arguments.

What did you and others 'guess' after oral arguments in the Obamacare case?

I guessed right in the ACA case with the exception being who made the deciding vote. I will amend my guess and say 6 3 in favor of striking down Prop 8...if they take it.

What reasons did you give? You did not predict Roberts' reasoning

Who fucking cares? Is it really that important? I said 5-4 on the ACA, that's all. Sheesh.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When you get a fish or gun liscense your being gay does not change your fishing or your possesion of said firearm. With same sex marriage in these two cases you are asking to eliminate hundreds of years of State precedent with regards to the marriage contract, and not via legislative action (which is the correct way to go) but via judical fiat.

By not going the route of legislation across all the states, you create a classic clauswitzian situation, where there will be peace, but not resolution of the conflict. We will end up with the same situation we have with abortion, where one side has "won" but the other side has not capitulated.

Just like we eliminated "hundreds of years of precedent" when we allowed women to vote, blacks to vote, blacks to marry whites, blacks to be educated with whites, etc. we're those institutions changed when we allowed more people access to them.

Women were given the vote via an amendment, the proper method of doing this. Blacks were given the vote and thier freedom via amendment, and the bloodiest war this nation has ever seen. All Jim Crow laws had thier basis on Plessey V. Fergueson, which was an abomination propogated by the very Court you are running to right now. ALL of your references are based on amendments that were passed to eliminate said restrictions IMPLICITLY, not derived from an amaglam of case law.

Again, I support legislative action on Gay Marriage, I just dont see it as a consitutional right the courts can impose on States that dont want it.

The vote: Women were not allowed to vote. Blacks were not allowed to vote. People under a certain age are still not allowed to vote. Not everyone is or was allowed to vote.

Marriage: Not everyone is allowed to have their marriage recognized by the state.

The state recognized marriages between two consenting adults of a prescribed age. Some states acknowledged this by revising laws to say only opposite-sex marriages between two consenting adults of a prescribed age would be recognized. This opens the door to separate but equal or discrimination on the basis of ... let a legal expert lay this part out...

"t would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse," quotes Walker."'[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,' has never been a rational basis for legislation," cites Walker. *"Animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate," Walker notes, with a jerk of the thumb at Kennedy. Judge Walker's decision to overturn Prop 8 is factual, well-reasoned, and powerful. - Slate Magazine

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I guessed right in the ACA case with the exception being who made the deciding vote. I will amend my guess and say 6 3 in favor of striking down Prop 8...if they take it.

What reasons did you give? You did not predict Roberts' reasoning

Who fucking cares? Is it really that important? I said 5-4 on the ACA, that's all. Sheesh.

Of course unless you were picking prescribed numbers out of a hat. People argued WHY the results would be 5-4/6-3...

Care? If you are going to brag about something you will get called on how pathetic your bragging rights are