Do SCOTUS' Gay Marriage Stays-In-Interim Apply to All 50 States?

[Silhouette]

As a General Rule. When the SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of one states law. It effects only that law.

So JUST in Utah, the voter's choice on keeping marriage between a man and a woman is dominant law. In all other states that chose the same thing, in the interim, they don't enjoy that same protection of their vote?

I think that could be challenged...successfully...

 

[ShackledNation]

As a General Rule. When the SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of one states law. It effects only that law.

So JUST in Utah, the voter's choice on keeping marriage between a man and a woman is dominant law. In all other states that chose the same thing, in the interim, they don't enjoy that same protection of their vote?

I think that could be challenged...successfully...

Stays have been granted in pretty much every case that is being appealed to SCOTUS...what are you talking about? Do you even have a clue what is going on? When reality hits you in the face I wish I could be there to see the bruise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil has truly lost the ability to cogitate on this issue. A stay only applies to the jurisdiction in which it was granted.

 

[Inevitable]

Apparently Utah DOES have the right to democratically rule on gay marriage.

That's called tyranny.

And the no-favoritism rule imposed upon the federal system means that no one state may enjoy such a privelege while others remain deprived. Not even for five minutes.

So California didn't have a ban on same sexmarriage so nothing is being deprived. Texas and Oklahoma and states that have bans are able to continue while this is beingworked out in the federal courts. California's prop 8 was found unconstitutional already. So the stay for bans wouldn't apply.

So SCOTUS ruling against gay marriage on the stay it granted Utah is "tyranny"? I'm sure they'll be interested to know that. I suppose it is: the "tyranny of the Nine"...

Meanwhile, voters in California are being told that their votes have no power to define marriage in the interim. While voters in Utah are being told theirs do. This favoritism is clearly and inarguably unconstitutional. No state may enjoy a constitutional civil right while others do not. There is no, zero, constitutional right that guarantees same gendera may marry each other. There is no constituitonal protections for behaviors.

Prop 8 stands.

Their votes have no power nit if what they votedon was unconstitutional. we aren't a democracy. Oh good lord why am I even arguing with you, you don't have a grade school level of understanding about government. Or you are being two faced.

Basic truth about our government IT IS NOT A DEMOCRACY.

 

[Inevitable]

Sil has truly lost the ability to cogitate on this issue. A stay only applies to the jurisdiction in which it was granted.

That moron doesn't even understand the basics or he is playing stupid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil continues to invert Windsor. There is no Utah vs. Harvey Milk.

Either she is delusional or she is lying deliberately.

There is no longer any other options.

 

[Silhouette]

Why when the Utah AG pled protecting his state's voters' duly enacted "one man one woman" law, citing Windsor's "state's choice" Finding, did SCOTUS then grant Utah the stay?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ergo, Prop 8 was actually Upheld in Windsor 2013. And SCOTUS knows this. And so did the AG of Utah.

Argue that in front of SCOTUS or the 10th District or in Utah state courts and you will be sanctioned.

 

[Silhouette]

Ergo, Prop 8 was actually Upheld in Windsor 2013. And SCOTUS knows this. And so did the AG of Utah.

Argue that in front of SCOTUS or the 10th District or in Utah state courts and you will be sanctioned.

Good. Worth the try for sure. Sanctioned...who gives a fuck?

 

[JakeStarkey]

When Sotomayor writes the majority of opinion recognizing marriage equality as the law of the land, all you can say is the law is wrong. Who cares?

 

[Silhouette]

When Sotomayor writes the majority of opinion recognizing marriage equality as the law of the land, all you can say is the law is wrong. Who cares?

Well that's actually what you are saying right now. You are saying "the US Supreme Court stay granted on Windsor for Utah "is wrong".

Yet it was granted when Windsor was cited to protect Utah's voters' civil right to have their democratic rule protected with respect to gay marriage. You're saying "yes but that legal situation only applies to Utah". And I beg to differ. With respect to such a fundamental civil right such as democratic rule and self-governance, no state may be preferred over others.

 

[Silhouette]

Well that's actually what you are saying right now. You are saying "the US Supreme Court stay granted on Windsor for Utah "is wrong".

Yet it was granted when Windsor [state's choice] was cited to protect Utah's voters' civil right to have their democratic rule protected with respect to gay marriage. You're saying "yes but that legal situation only applies to Utah". And I beg to differ. With respect to such a fundamental civil right such as democratic rule and self-governance, no state may be preferred over others.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

So a logic question as to the way the law functions.

Claim: The SCOTUS issued a stay for the Utah case based on those with standing filing a request for such a stay. That stay is now a stay on SSCM in all states (or at least those states where it was not otherwise already legal).

Reality: When the SCOTUS issues a stay, it is for that case. Now, lower courts can take that stay as guidance and then issue their own stay pending appeal or not stay their ruling and the loser would then have to file a stay request with the SCOTUS to receive their own stay. That is in fact what happened with the 4th Circuit Courts ruling. They provided a temporary stay to allow time to appeal, that stay was due to expire tomorrow at 08:00. The SCOTUS though issued a stay in the Virginia case putting future SSCM's on hold. The stay is self expiring, if the respondants were to choose not to appeal (not likely) then the stay would automatically expire (IIRC on 9/23/14 if no appeal is filed).


LOGIC: If the Utah stay was applicable to all 50 states, then why did Virginia have to get their own stay? Under the logic of the OP, no such stay would be required as the Utah stay was already issue. So in fact the SCOTUS itself proved the OP wrong as they issued a stay for Virginia upon request by those with standing. If the OP's version were correct, not stay would have been needed and the SCOTUS wouldn't have issued one.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

>

So a logic question as to the way the law functions.

Claim: The SCOTUS issued a stay for the Utah case based on those with standing filing a request for such a stay. That stay is now a stay on SSCM in all states (or at least those states where it was not otherwise already legal).

Reality: When the SCOTUS issues a stay, it is for that case. Now, lower courts can take that stay as guidance and then issue their own stay pending appeal or not stay their ruling and the loser would then have to file a stay request with the SCOTUS to receive their own stay. That is in fact what happened with the 4th Circuit Courts ruling. They provided a temporary stay to allow time to appeal, that stay was due to expire tomorrow at 08:00. The SCOTUS though issued a stay in the Virginia case putting future SSCM's on hold. The stay is self expiring, if the respondants were to choose not to appeal (not likely) then the stay would automatically expire (IIRC on 9/23/14 if no appeal is filed).


LOGIC: If the Utah stay was applicable to all 50 states, then why did Virginia have to get their own stay? Under the logic of the OP, no such stay would be required as the Utah stay was already issue. So in fact the SCOTUS itself proved the OP wrong as they issued a stay for Virginia upon request by those with standing. If the OP's version were correct, not stay would have been needed and the SCOTUS wouldn't have issued one.



>>>>

I'm saying that when a stay is granted on pleadings that wish to preserve democratic rule on a particular question that's being appealed [in this case gay marriage] in the interim, that if that fundamental right [the right of one's vote to count] is granted by the top federal entity empowered to do so [SCOTUS] to one state, all states may thereafter enjoy it during the same time frame. According to the principle of equal treatment of the states.

 

[Silhouette]

Duplicate post. Please god please use a different color of font on the lower bar. Just go into the CSS editing and find where the "color =" code is for that bar and change the font on that bar from black to white. Pretty please?

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

So a logic question as to the way the law functions.

Claim: The SCOTUS issued a stay for the Utah case based on those with standing filing a request for such a stay. That stay is now a stay on SSCM in all states (or at least those states where it was not otherwise already legal).

Reality: When the SCOTUS issues a stay, it is for that case. Now, lower courts can take that stay as guidance and then issue their own stay pending appeal or not stay their ruling and the loser would then have to file a stay request with the SCOTUS to receive their own stay. That is in fact what happened with the 4th Circuit Courts ruling. They provided a temporary stay to allow time to appeal, that stay was due to expire tomorrow at 08:00. The SCOTUS though issued a stay in the Virginia case putting future SSCM's on hold. The stay is self expiring, if the respondants were to choose not to appeal (not likely) then the stay would automatically expire (IIRC on 9/23/14 if no appeal is filed).


LOGIC: If the Utah stay was applicable to all 50 states, then why did Virginia have to get their own stay? Under the logic of the OP, no such stay would be required as the Utah stay was already issue. So in fact the SCOTUS itself proved the OP wrong as they issued a stay for Virginia upon request by those with standing. If the OP's version were correct, not stay would have been needed and the SCOTUS wouldn't have issued one.



>>>>

I'm saying that when a stay is granted on pleadings that wish to preserve democratic rule on a particular question that's being appealed [in this case gay marriage] in the interim, that if that fundamental right [the right of one's vote to count] is granted by the top federal entity empowered to do so [SCOTUS] to one state, all states may thereafter enjoy it during the same time frame. According to the principle of equal treatment of the states.

And the reality is that stays are granted on a case-by-case basis. If the Utah case applied to all 50 states the SCOTUS would not have stayed the Virginia case, they would have rejected the stay request from Virginia and told the 4th Circuit that the stay in the 10th's case was applicable nationally. So you appeal to emotion aside, they didn't - the SCOTUS needed to issue a separate stay in the Virginia case because those with standing applied for one.

The actions of the 10th, 4th, and SCOTUS prove your premise to be false.

In the next few months the SCOTUS will:

1. Accept both the 10th and 4th case for review, which maintains both stays until they issue a ruling.

2. Accept one while rejecting the other. In which case the stay for the rejected case automatically expires upon denial of the writ of certiorari (unless extended by the court). (See stay text -->> http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/14A196-McGuigg-v.-Bostic-Order.pdf)

3. Accept both cases and then either deal with them seperately and issue separate rulings (unlikely IMHO) or combine them into a single ruling (likely IMHO).​

So far the SCOTUS had dealt with both cases, where parties have standing to appeal in the same manner, so your emotionalism isn't warranted. In two instances - California** and Oregon - the SCOTUS has rejected stay requests because the parties requesting the stay have not had standing.



*** After the SCOTUS allowed the ruling of Prop 8 being unconstitutional was issued, non-standing parties requested a stay so that a request for re-review was made. The SCOTUS rejected the stay request making the District Court judges ruling the final decision in the matter.



>>>>

​

 

[WorldWatcher]

Duplicate post. Please god please use a different color of font on the lower bar. Just go into the CSS editing and find where the "color =" code is for that bar and change the font on that bar from black to white. Pretty please?

Instead of pleading for divine intervention, you might want to make a request of the Admin's here -->> [OFFICIAL SOFTWARE UPGRADE] Help and Bug Thread | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


BTW - for, I believe 90 minutes, after you post you can edit your post by clicking "Edit" below your Avatar & Info on the left side of the screen.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Duplicate post. Please god please use a different color of font on the lower bar. Just go into the CSS editing and find where the "color =" code is for that bar and change the font on that bar from black to white. Pretty please?

Instead of pleading for divine intervention, you might want to make a request of the Admin's here -->> [OFFICIAL SOFTWARE UPGRADE] Help and Bug Thread | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


BTW - for, I believe 90 minutes, after you post you can edit your post by clicking "Edit" below your Avatar & Info on the left side of the screen.


>>>>

Yes, I know.