Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[Vigilante]

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.

 

[Vigilante]

The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.

Yet Oboma gets away with ACTUALLY breaking the immigration law! ...Which is Constitutional!

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.

Yet Oboma gets away with ACTUALLY breaking the immigration law! ...Which is Constitutional!

Exactly HOW is Obama breaking immigration law? Got any links to actual news sites?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is getting insane! Does anybody here think that this is a good idea?

The Oathkeepers organization are apparently trying to one-up the Westboro Baptist Church in the department of crazy attention-seeking. In a statement and recorded phone call featuring Oathkeeper's founder Stewart Rhodes, Jackson County (Kentucky) Sheriff Denny Peyman, Missouri Oathkeeper Jon Karriman and West Virginia Oathkeeper Allen Lardieri, the men outlined their plans to head to Kentucky to provide "round-the-clock" protection for Kim Davis to ensure Federal Marshals are not able to take her into custody again if U.S. District Judge David Bunning orders her to be held again on contempt of court charges. The group had previously planned to protest in front of Judge Bunning's home.

Oathkeepers vow to 'intercede' if U.S. Marshals try to take Kim Davis into custody again

You grasp that Westboro is satire, they exist to defame Christians, right?

Those damned Christians would never do the things the left accused them of, so the left created their own "special Krischuns" Thus was born the Westboro Baptist church - with 7 members - under life long democrat Fred Phelps who ran for Congress as a "liberal democrat" twice.

Here is another shocker, Communist Norman Lear's Archie Bunker was meant to mock conservatives.

And what about that makes the Oathkeepers less crazy and dangerous?

 

[dcraelin]

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

but as your 3rd link shows.............the other courts, when they did mention it......................got it wrong.

You said the lower courts didn't address Baker - I showed they did address Baker.

You said they were bound by Baker - I showed where there were developmental caused Baker not to apply.

You say the lower courts got it wrong - yet the SCOTUS upheld the lower courts and specifically declared Baker overturned.

And they "got it wrong".

Well at that point there is only one thing to say.

...................................

you showed some of them addressed baker.....at least one in opposition to the other courts....

5 of 9 of SC agree with you, hardly a slam dunk.......and 2 of the 5 in majority signaled their impervious-ness to logic and legal precedent when they presided over gay weddings.

The Valentines Day ruling is emblematic of the majority of lower courts

How much longer are you going to beat that dead horse. You're like a 2 year old in a supermarket check out line having a temper tantrum because mom wont buy you a Mars Bar

Like I said earlier, you and apparently your tedious obsession with bashing anyone who disagrees with you on this subject, have led us down this path.

 

[dcraelin]

your link for the 2nd circuit is the same link for the 4th......so one of these links, at least, is a lie..........regardless they did not have the right to avoid that precedent

A mistake in copying a link incorrectly is not a lie. Here is the corrected link -->>
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf

They didn't "avoid" the precedent. Avoiding the precedent would have been not mentioning it. But they did mention it.

Precedent's are not inviolate such when the conditions under which the precedent are not the same or when the SCOTUS indicates that the previous conditions no longer apply. Which of course exactly what happened with Roamer v. Evans, Lawrence overturned Bowers and when they issued the Windsor decision, all showing that homosexual have due process and equal protection rights.

If the SCOTUS had thought that Baker was still applicable, then they would have slapped down the first appeal that reached them concerning SSCM. But they didn't. In the end the District and Circuit Court Judges got the correct read from the SCOTUS as they specifically overturned Baker as part of Obergefell.


>>>>

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.

The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'

Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.

Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.

I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?

Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.

And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.

Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.

And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.

The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.

You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.

It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question. I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....

I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

 

[Silhouette]

The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say that behaviors are protected classes?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say that behaviors are protected classes?

Religion is a behavior, a choice in nearly all cases, dumbass...

 

[Faun]

The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say that behaviors are protected classes?

The protected class is .... "any person" in the U.S. ....

....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Supreme Court didn't make a law, they reviewed the lawsuits according to their Constitutionality, and found that discrimination was against the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it say that behaviors are protected classes?

Lawrence v. Texas

Obergefell v. Hodges

Case law = Constitutional law = Constitutional

So simple even a bigot can do it

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A mistake in copying a link incorrectly is not a lie. Here is the corrected link -->>
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf

They didn't "avoid" the precedent. Avoiding the precedent would have been not mentioning it. But they did mention it.

Precedent's are not inviolate such when the conditions under which the precedent are not the same or when the SCOTUS indicates that the previous conditions no longer apply. Which of course exactly what happened with Roamer v. Evans, Lawrence overturned Bowers and when they issued the Windsor decision, all showing that homosexual have due process and equal protection rights.

If the SCOTUS had thought that Baker was still applicable, then they would have slapped down the first appeal that reached them concerning SSCM. But they didn't. In the end the District and Circuit Court Judges got the correct read from the SCOTUS as they specifically overturned Baker as part of Obergefell.


>>>>

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.

The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'

Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.

Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.

I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?

Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.

And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.

Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.

And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.

The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.

You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.

It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question. I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....

I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets

Get the fuck over it.

 

[dcraelin]

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.

The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'

Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.

Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.

I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?

Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.

And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.

Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.

And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.

The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.

You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.

It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question. I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....

I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets

Get the fuck over it.

oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot

you know, most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....

I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.

The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'

Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.

Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.

I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?

Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.

And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.

Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.

And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.

The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.

You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.

It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question. I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....

I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets

Get the fuck over it.

oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot

you know, most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....

I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

 

[Skylar]

A mistake in copying a link incorrectly is not a lie. Here is the corrected link -->>
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisio...6-98fa59ffb645/1/doc/12-2335_complete_opn.pdf

They didn't "avoid" the precedent. Avoiding the precedent would have been not mentioning it. But they did mention it.

Precedent's are not inviolate such when the conditions under which the precedent are not the same or when the SCOTUS indicates that the previous conditions no longer apply. Which of course exactly what happened with Roamer v. Evans, Lawrence overturned Bowers and when they issued the Windsor decision, all showing that homosexual have due process and equal protection rights.

If the SCOTUS had thought that Baker was still applicable, then they would have slapped down the first appeal that reached them concerning SSCM. But they didn't. In the end the District and Circuit Court Judges got the correct read from the SCOTUS as they specifically overturned Baker as part of Obergefell.


>>>>

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.

The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'

Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.

Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.

I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?

Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.

And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.

Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.

And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.

The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.

You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.

It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question. I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....

I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?

Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.

Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.

 

[dcraelin]

I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?

Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.

And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.

Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.

And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.

The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.

You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.

It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question. I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....

I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets

Get the fuck over it.

oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot

you know, most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....

I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

 

[dcraelin]

saying that the SCOTUS would have done the right thing in slapping down the appeal.........when of course their mind was already made up ...........is kind of a circular argument. ...............

No, its a clear demonstration that you don't know what you're talking about. You're insisting that the lower courts were bound to Baker, when they weren't.

The lower court rulings overwhelmingly relied on more recent precedent, most relevantly tghe the precedent of Windsor. With its communication of the court's position on same sex marriage so clearly that even Scalia said it was 'beyond mistaking' and that the State same sex marriage bans being overturned using the logic of Windsor was 'inevitable.'

Scalia and the lower courts were right on how to interpret the Windsor ruling: the USSC did affirm same sex marriage and did overturn state marriage bans. The lower courts got it right. With the exception of the 6th which the USSC reviewed and overturned.

Your position that the lower courts should have ignored Windsor, Lawrence and Romer in favor of Baker was wrong. As the USSC demonstrated so elegantly in Obergefell.

I dont believe Windsor itself said it overruled Baker....so why should the lower courts assume it did?

Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.

And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.

Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.

And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.

The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.

You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.

It dealt with a side issue...............who had the power on wedding policy...and really in a way affirmed Baker by saying it was the states.....i.e. want of federal question. I am sure you are misreading Scalia.....

I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

And by 'tortured rationalizations', you mean simply NOT ignoring Lawerence v. Texas, Romer v. Evans and Windsor v US as you have done?

Remember, you haven't actually presented any rational reason why to ignore any of these rulings. They are all relevant. They are all binding precedent. They are all much more recent than the one sentence denial of cert that the USSC offered in 1972.

Just because you ignore these rulings doesn't mean that the lower courts are obligated to do so as well.

read the 6ths opinion on Baker and you will see you are wrong.

As I have said before, I believe Lawrence is more to do with issue of privacy, so irrelevant to the argument.

Romer is indecipherable,,,just a garbled collection of words. It opens with a quote that should be more applicable to the dissents.....it is garbage.

Windsor actually in a way agrees with Baker. no substantial federal question.

I must say my worries about further legal ramifications from the idiocies of Obergefell, Windsor, and the prop8 ruling, have been somewhat mollified by the results of Arizona leg v. Arizona independent commission. That however is only due to the hypocrisy of the majority in both...the same 5 I believe.

Thomas outlines this well in his dissent in Arizona. He gets standing wrong again, but is right on the hypocrisy.

Sotomayer gets standing right in her partial, prop 8 case dissent.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Because 'what you believe'has no relevance to case law, precedent or any ruling.

And of course, because there was far more relevant, immediate precedent that actually had specific findings to guide decisions. Romer, Lawrence and Windsor collectively representing over a hundred pages of binding precedent. Baker was a single sentence formalizing a denial of writ of cert in accordance with federal law at the time. The USSC does this a hundred times a session now with no particular legal relevance.

Actual rulings provide orders of magnitude more guidance for lower court rulings than a formal denial of cert. And with each of the rulings being more relevant as they are more recent. And thus establish a legal foundation that didn't exist at the time of Baker.

And because Windsor utterly telegraphed the court's interpretation of the right to same sex marriage. Even those in dissent recognized the clarity of Windsor in communicating the court's views and intentions. With Scalia calling the court's view on same sex marriage bans 'beyond mistaking'. And concluding that the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans 'inevitable'.

The lower court found Windsor equally compelling with almost universal consensus. Something like 46 of 49 rulings aligned with this interpretation of Windsor. An interpretation which was affirmed as the correct one by the high court in Obergefell.

You ignore the impact of Romer and Lawerence and discount the clarity of Windsor. The lower courts didn't. Even those in dissent of Windsor didn't. And as the Obergefell ruling demonstrates, you were wrong to do so.

I'm sure you haven't read Scalia's dissent in Windsor and have no idea what you're talking about.

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets

Get the fuck over it.

oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot

you know, most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....

I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

 

[koshergrl]

"Baker was a single sentence"

Man, could you learn from Baker

all the tortured rationalization since has not changed what that simple single sentence implied.....no substantial federal question.

That was 1972!! Only the most desperate bigot are still talking about it. Oberegfell overturned Baker. It was the last nail in the coffin of a case that was all but dead already. To cling to Baker at this late date is as pathetic as it gets

Get the fuck over it.

oh fuck off, I'm not a bigot

you know, most winners are content to let the loser fume in silence.....

I suspect you now realize that there really are no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell.

So you admit that you haven't read it. If you did, you would know how ridiculous that statement is.

What a stupid, childish reply. I have read most of it

A childish reply in one where someone makes a inane statement that there is " no legal, logical underpinnings to obergefell" without so much as trying to back it up. That is nothing but an appeal to ignorance. "I said it so it's true" type of juvenile horseshit,

He did back it up. You are incapable of understanding, but that's not a reflection on him.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I predict she's gonna be back in jail within 3 days of returning to work.

And.................if she goes back, she should be held there until she steps down from her position.