Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal

[Silhouette]

The 10th, 7th, and 4th were before the elections, the 11th and the 9th were AFTER the elections.

Your track record with your crystal ball has been consistently incorrect, don't use it to place any bets.



>>>>

Console yourself with that. Meanwhile I wonder what would happen if someone appealed in the 6th circuit in order to allow gay marriages until further notice?

Like I said before..

That was before the elections. This is now. My crystal ball tells me that conservatives will not want to extinct their own mindset by promoting a culture that seeks to destroy them at their foundation (homosexual lifestyles vs their antithesis: christian values and mandates). The new conservative Congress convenes in a few short weeks. If you think they're going to sit on their hands while activists judges underneath SCOTUS circumvent procedure by trying to overturn Windsor or mindread a "likely future decision" by the Supremes...well... enjoy your world of delusion.

You see, the family is the nucleus of society. Society is filled with voters. If conservatives do nothing to stop the spread of a subculture who has made it implicitly clear that it means to do away with christian values in the hearts of the faithful where the church resides (think of the lawsuits against florists and bakers), then they must surely be able to do the math on what type of values (and voters) will be around two generations hence.

Pretty sure they're going to put up a fight before they go belly up and piss on themselves at the sight of rainbow-colored jackboots....and an 82% disapproval rating on that subcultural takeover of christian values at their core:Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 591 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

We are talking about THE environment where childrens' minds are primarily formed. Children, might I remind you, are the future political climate...a thing you and your ilk are VERY familiar with and have used your buddies in Hollowood to get deep inside the psyches of.

All Hail Harvey Milk...

 

[Silhouette]

Funny thing, you cut out the quote from Sutton where he acknowledges that doctrinal changes can also change the legal landscape from previous SCOTUS rulings, now he disagrees with the other courts that such changes have occurred. But he points out they exist. "Even if Windsor did not overrule Baker by name, the claimants point out, lower courts still may rely on “doctrinal developments” in the aftermath of a summary disposition as a ground for not following the decision.

Let's see what Sutton said just AFTER your quote that just stops suddenly 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

******

Even if Windsor did not overrule Baker by name, the claimants point out, lower courts still may rely on “doctrinal developments” in the aftermath of a summary disposition as a ground for not following the decision. Hicks, 422 U.S. at 344. And Windsor, they say, together with Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), permit us to cast Baker aside. But this reading of “doctrinal developments” would be a groundbreaking development of its own. From the perspective of a lower court, summary dispositions remain “controlling precedent, unless and until re-examined by [the Supreme] Court.”...the Court has told us to treat the two types of decisions, whether summary dispositions or full-merits decisions, the same, “prevent[ing] lower courts” in both settings “from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.”

 

[Silhouette]

So a summary judgment such as Baker and an actual judgment such as Windsor, cannot be opposed by lower courts.

The precise question of law, not subject to "doctrinal developments", is whether or not states have the right to approve or disapprove of gay marriage. Baker and Windsor BOTH said that states do have that right. Lower circuit courts are in violation of law who have ordered states to perform gay marriages against their Will and Law.

I smell some impeachments on the way..

 

[WorldWatcher]

So a summary judgment such as Baker and an actual judgment such as Windsor, cannot be opposed by lower courts.

The precise question of law, not subject to "doctrinal developments", is whether or not states have the right to approve or disapprove of gay marriage. Baker and Windsor BOTH said that states do have that right. Lower circuit courts are in violation of law who have ordered states to perform gay marriages against their Will and Law.

I smell some impeachments on the way..

If Baker was to applied as you claim and Windsor says what you say it says (which it doesn't) - then the SCOTUS would have issued a stay to the appeal from the 11th Circuit court case. But they didn't.

If Baker was to applied as you claim and Windsor says what you say it says (which it doesn't) - then the SCOTUS would have issued a stay to the appeal from the 10th Circuit court case. But they didn't.

If Baker was to applied as you claim and Windsor says what you say it says (which it doesn't) - then the SCOTUS would have issued a stay to the appeal from the 9th Circuit court case. But they didn't.

If Baker was to applied as you claim and Windsor says what you say it says (which it doesn't) - then the SCOTUS would have issued a stay to the appeal from the 7th Circuit court case. But they didn't.

If Baker was to applied as you claim and Windsor says what you say it says (which it doesn't) - then the SCOTUS would have issued a stay to the appeal from the 4th Circuit court case. But they didn't.

****************************************************************************

The SCOTUS has allowed the number of States where SSCM's is legal to go from (IIRC) about 19 to blossom to (IIRC) 36 since the beginning of October when they started denying stays.

If your logic was true, then please explain why the SCOTUS allowed Civil Marriages to start for those new states instead of just issuing a stay until the formally processed an appeal?



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

The SCOTUS has allowed the number of States where SSCM's is legal to go from (IIRC) about 19 to blossom to (IIRC) 36 since the beginning of October when they started denying stays.

If your logic was true, then please explain why the SCOTUS allowed Civil Marriages to start for those new states instead of just issuing a stay until the formally processed an appeal?



>>>>

You cannot deduce why SCOTUS allowed the stays, then denied them, then allowed them..back and forth back and forth...Why did SCOTUS allow any stay to remain for any period of time? But they did, didn't they?

The law is the law, unexplained stays or not. The Justices are very careful to note that their stays are not rulings upon the merit. You'd do well to note that too. But you already know that; which is why I consider you and everything you say to be intellectually dishonest..

 

[WorldWatcher]

The SCOTUS has allowed the number of States where SSCM's is legal to go from (IIRC) about 19 to blossom to (IIRC) 36 since the beginning of October when they started denying stays.

If your logic was true, then please explain why the SCOTUS allowed Civil Marriages to start for those new states instead of just issuing a stay until the formally processed an appeal?



>>>>

You cannot deduce why SCOTUS allowed the stays, then denied them, then allowed them..back and forth back and forth...Why did SCOTUS allow any stay to remain for any period of time? But they did, didn't they?

The law is the law, unexplained stays or not. The Justices are very careful to note that their stays are not rulings upon the merit. You'd do well to note that too. But you already know that; which is why I consider you and everything you say to be intellectually dishonest..

I don't claim to deduce how the SCOTUS will rule on a future case.

I'm simply pointing out that YOUR statements about the law were incorrect.

If YOUR opinion of Baker and Windsor were correct, then the SCOTUS would have issued stays preventing SSCM's from starting in an additional 16 or 17 States. But they didn't, they let those marriages start. A clear indication that your opinion on the applicability Baker and Windsor is lacking.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Bat guano or not. Windsor set the Ruling for states' choice on gay lifestyle marriages. Prop 8 was California's choice. Do the math. Initiative law is top dog in that state.

Bat guano crazy.

Prop 8 is dead.

People in love are getting married every day.

And the haters hate that.

 

[Syriusly]

I smell some impeachments on the way..

All you smell is your complete lack of understanding of the legal system and the law.

 

[Syriusly]

Funny thing, you cut out the quote from Sutton where he acknowledges that doctrinal changes can also change the legal landscape from previous SCOTUS rulings, now he disagrees with the other courts that such changes have occurred. But he points out they exist. "Even if Windsor did not overrule Baker by name, the claimants point out, lower courts still may rely on “doctrinal developments” in the aftermath of a summary disposition as a ground for not following the decision.

Let's see what Sutton said just AFTER your quote that just stops suddenly 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

What Sutton said applies only to the courts under his jurisdiction.

Other Appeals Courts have disagreed.

 

[Silhouette]

But there is a disagreement though..

 

[Silhouette]

What Sutton said applies only to the courts under his jurisdiction.
Other Appeals Courts have disagreed.

The point is that there is a disagreement and that Sutton has a different perspective. That perspective will be weighed by SCOTUS.

Next you will launch into a "logical legal deduction" that because more lower circuits tried to overrule Windsor from underneath, they now by their numbers are more powerful than SCOTUS or "can out vote Sutton's opinion in the 6th circuit". Both deductions are of course, false. Nor do those various other lower circuit judges speak for a majority of their wards. They don't. Hence the reason for their minority activism in the first place.

This is not a government By the lower cicuit judges, Of the lower circuit judges and For the lower circuit judges. It is a government of the People. The LGBT membership is about sexual behaviors-as-lifestyles. Quite properly they are a cult, a very aggressive one at that. They aren't a race.

Those lower circuit decisions currently in defiance of that specific question of law settled in Windsor (state's choice on gay marriage), aren't worth the paper they're written on.

 

[Syriusly]

What Sutton said applies only to the courts under his jurisdiction.
Other Appeals Courts have disagreed.

The point is that there is a disagreement and that Sutton has a different perspective. That perspective will be weighed by SCOTUS..

Wow- that is the closest to a logical and rational analysis that I think I have ever seen you make.

Yes- Sutton has a different perspective- and we can be certain that the Supreme Court will consider his perspective along with all of the judges who have different perspectives- along with the arguments of those for marriage equality and those against.

But what Sutton says about marriage does not apply to any courts NOW other than the ones under his jurisdiction.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, what Sutton says DOES apply now. He is 100% right. Lower circuit courts cannot overturn SCOTUS on a specific question of law such as "do states have the right to say yes or no to gay marriage". Windsor found that they did have that choice, that "unquestioned authority". So other circuits ordering states against their will to ratify gay marriage are in contempt of court, essentially. One could also say they are guilty of sedition.

Congress may in fact say they have committed impeachable offenses....stay tuned...

 

[Silhouette]

Wow- that is the closest to a logical and rational analysis that I think I have ever seen you make.

Yes- Sutton has a different perspective- and we can be certain that the Supreme Court will consider his perspective along with all of the judges who have different perspectives- along with the arguments of those for marriage equality and those against.

But what Sutton says about marriage does not apply to any courts NOW other than the ones under his jurisdiction.

Here's why you're wrong about that. The other circuit judges who forced gay marriage upon unwilling states, did so by circumventing federal appelate court procedure on a specific question of law. That specific question of law, decided in Windsor 2013 until further notice by SCOTUS, is "do states have the jurisdiction to ratify gay marriage or not?" The answer in Windsor was "YES". They have the "Unquestioned authority" to do so. In fact, that one pivotal point, that one laser point question of law was the hinge that caused Windsor to be found in favor of Edie Windsor. That jurisdiction includes the right to say "no" to gay marriage. This was reaffirmed by SCOTUS' statement that as of that Decision, "only some states have legal gay marriage". That means they were acknowledging that a state may say "yes" as well as "no" to gay marriage. And THAT IS THE CURRENT FEDERAL LAW. The only people who can change that law as applicable are the Big Nine.

So Sutton's opinion outweighs all the others because it is an opinion that does not defy SCOTUS. It reaffirms federal procedure and it is not in contempt of the power of the states that was reaffirmed in Windsor.

Sutton has the best chance of the circuit judges in holding onto his job as the impeachment talks get under way here in a couple of weeks..

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, what Sutton says DOES apply now. He is 100% right. Lower circuit courts cannot overturn SCOTUS on a specific question of law such as "do states have the right to say yes or no to gay marriage". Windsor found that they did have that choice, that "unquestioned authority". So other circuits ordering states against their will to ratify gay marriage are in contempt of court, essentially. One could also say they are guilty of sedition.

Congress may in fact say they have committed impeachable offenses....stay tuned...

Talking to yourself again?

What Sutton says is applicable to the courts in his jurisdiction and his jurisdiction only. He does not get to overrule the other Appellete Courts that disagree with his ruling.

Congress may say that Martians are invading the earth- which is no more unlikely than your claim.

 

[Syriusly]

Sutton has the best chance of the circuit judges in holding onto his job as the impeachment talks get under way here in a couple of weeks..

There will be no impeachment talks- but I will put it on my calendar to remind you of that in 2 weeks.

 

[Syriusly]

Wow- that is the closest to a logical and rational analysis that I think I have ever seen you make.

Yes- Sutton has a different perspective- and we can be certain that the Supreme Court will consider his perspective along with all of the judges who have different perspectives- along with the arguments of those for marriage equality and those against.

But what Sutton says about marriage does not apply to any courts NOW other than the ones under his jurisdiction.

So Sutton's opinion outweighs all the others because it is an opinion that does not defy SCOTUS. ..

Sutton's opinion only applies to the courts in the 6th Circuit.

Thats it.

Just as Judge Crabb's opinion only applies to the 7th circuit:

"This case is not about whether marriages between same-sex couples are consistent or inconsistent with the teachings of a particular religion, whether such marriages are moral or immoral or whether they are something that should be encouraged or discouraged. It is not even about whether the plaintiffs in this case are as capable as opposite-sex couples of maintaining a committed and loving relationship or raising a family together. Quite simply,this case is about liberty and equality, the two cornerstones of the rights protected by the United States Constitution." - Judge Barbara Crabb

 

[Silhouette]

Talking to yourself again?

What Sutton says is applicable to the courts in his jurisdiction and his jurisdiction only. He does not get to overrule the other Appellete Courts that disagree with his ruling....

What Sutton says is applicable to the other courts in the lower circuit because what he says...get ready for this because it's crucial...is the actual truth about procedure in the federal appelate court system. No lower court may overrule from underneath any specific question of law, such as "do states have the right & power to ratify or not ratify gay marriage within their borders?" SCOTUS said "yes, yes they do" in Windsor. They emphasized that statement by finding at the end of that 2013 Opinion that gay marriage is "only legal in some states"..

Until further notice by SCOTUS, no lower court can touch that Finding. None of them. So Sutton's Finding is a finding that applies to the other courts currently in contempt of Windsor 2013...

 

[Syriusly]

Talking to yourself again?

What Sutton says is applicable to the courts in his jurisdiction and his jurisdiction only. He does not get to overrule the other Appellete Courts that disagree with his ruling....

What Sutton says is applicable to the other courts in the lower circuit because what he says..

Is Sutton's informed opinion.

Just like the other Judges have their informed opinions.

But Sutton's opinion is only legally binding on the courts under his jurisidiction.

And the other Appeals court decisions are binding upon the courts in their jurisdiction.

Simple as that.

 

[Syriusly]

" SCOTUS said "yes, yes they do" in Windsor. They emphasized that statement by finding at the end of that 2013 Opinion that gay marriage is "only legal in some states"...

Scotus said very clearly that State laws must be constitutional.

And judges are finding that those state laws are not constitutional.

Exactly as the decision in Windsor specifically said could happen.

In order to assess the validity of that intervention it is
necessary to discuss the extent of the state power and authority
over marriage as a matter of history and tradition.
State laws defining and regulating marriage, of
course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons,
see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject
to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is
“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive
province of the States.”

That is the part of Windsor you want to ignore- because it doesn't suit your agenda- it actually refutes your agenda.