Overruling From Underneath: 32 States Demand SCOTUS Stand Up & Explain Windsor 2013

[Silhouette]

32 States Ask Supreme Court to Settle Gay Marriage - ABC News
Thirty-two states that either allow gay marriage or have banned it asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to settle the issue once and for all.
Fifteen states that allow gay marriage, led by Massachusetts, filed a brief asking the justices to take up three cases from Virginia, Utah and Oklahoma and overturn bans. And 17 other states, led by Colorado, that have banned the practice asked the court to hear cases from Utah and Oklahoma to clear up a "morass" of lawsuits

It's very simple. There should have been a press release from the halls of SCOTUS concerning the reach of Windsor and what it means to lower federal court judges who have been "overruling it from underneath" ever since.

These judges are causing enormous frustration and frankly their sedition is causing numerous headaches. The Supreme Court of the United States must produce a statement upon Windsor as they hear these appeals in the interim. They must definitively declare what the Law is NOW as these appeals are heard. Of course it's all in the Opinion on Windsor: United States v. Windsor ....but apparently lower court judges are taking what the press has said about Windsor and deciding from there instead of actually cracking open the Opinion and reading what it means.

Windsor said that gay marriage is new and weird and as such the decision on whether or not to allow it falls under the "unquestioned authority" of the "discreet communities" of each state via a consensus.

They also said that if in the FUTURE gay marriage is found to be protected under the 14th Amendment [they cited Loving v Virginia as the case that might be cited], THEN gay marriage might be a federally-protected affair. But UNTIL THEN gay marriage is up to the states. That means that in any decision made in the lower levels, judges were to defer to state's rights on the question: not overrule Windsor each time.

The issue of states'-rights on the question of gay marriage was pivotal in the decision to award Ms. Windsor the win. They used the fact that gay marriage was up to the states to strike down the part of DOMA that they did. You can't do that and then turn around and say "but oh, it really isn't up to the states". It either is and it's why Windsor won. Or it isn't and she shouldn't have won.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Same place I get other Federal Law info,

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

 

[Silhouette]

Same place I get other Federal Law info,

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR LII Legal Information Institute

OK, so you would then vote on the poll "I've actually read it for myself"? I notice you didn't vote?

 

[Darlene]

I was reading it but it's too long and I lost interest halfway through.

 

[Silhouette]

I was reading it but it's too long and I lost interest halfway through.

I wonder if that's the same thing the circuit court judges are doing too? A wise person interested in the outcome of the LGBT marriage controversy might be well advised to read the one document that the Court will refer to when making Its ultimate Decision on the matter.

The real beef in the Opinion is really only from pages 14 to 22. They're small pages and it makes very quick reading actually...

 

[Silhouette]

The question of this thread is "do judges underneath SCOTUS have the right to overrule Windsor 2013 fundamentally?"

Windsor won because the fed said "states get to decide". Then lower judges are saying "no they don't"???