Sotomayor Grants Emergency Stay to Kansas: Halts Gay Marriage.

[Syriusly]

So what was this order?

A temporary stay pending a response from the ACLU

Sotomayor’s brief order directed the American Civil Liberties Union to respond by 4 p.m. Tuesday to Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt’s appeal.

For now, gay marriages are barred in Kansas until Sotomayor receives the response from the ACLU and the court renders further judgment in the case.


Read more here: Gay marriages on hold in Kansas after order by Justice Sonia Sotomayor The Kansas City Stary

No one should read too much into Sotomayor's temporary stay.

 

[Syriusly]

This reminds me of a court clerk in San Diego, CA, Ernie Dronenburg. He tried to get clarity from the State or Fed authorites on how exactly it was that he was supposed to be put in the squeeze between the two groups. On the one hand if he obeyed his Oath to uphold the duly enacted laws of the State by its superior intiative system, he faced legal threats from the Governor or AG Harris who promised to torture him. On the other hand, if he cowered to their threats ( a thing he ultimately did) he was a co-conspirator in sedition against the Will of the electorate there.QUOTE]

More bat guano crazy.

 

[Silhouette]

The response was filed yesterday, I believe. So far the order keeping the law in place in Kansas is still in effect. The Supreme Court at this stage in the game would have to openly defy the 6th circuit's Opinion and essentially render a verdict in-advance of their own eventual Hearing if they revoked the stay on gay marriage in Kansas.

In so doing, the US Supreme Court would have to undo the way law is enforced and sustained in the federal circuit system. Revoking the ban would mean that it is now legal and OK to "rule or overturn from underneath". The summary judgment of Baker, 1971, and therefore, all other summary judgments by the US Supreme Court, could be undone by the lower courts, shifting power and authority to the under-courts in preference to the Supreme Court.

That would be an impressive collateral damage wrought by the gay marriage steamroller...but there will be more to come...like behaviors in minority, repugnant to the majority, suddenly being able to dictate to the majority...and other "equal marriages" such as polygamy, incest etc. also gaining legal precedent to be able to marry once "A man and A woman" is finally rendered utterly obsolete.

 

[Silhouette]

The ACLU said that the Supreme Court denied a nearly identical request last month to stay an order when Alaska’s same-sex marriage ban was overturned in a district court. Kansas has never recognized same-sex marriage. In 2005, voters passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Kansas, has ruled that state bans on same-sex marriage in Oklahoma and Utah are unconstitutional. But the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee last week. The circuit split means the high court will likely have to rule on the issue for the entire nation, a fact Schmidt says justifies a stay. The ACLU disagrees.
Read more here: ACLU files brief with Supreme Court in Kansas same-sex marriage case The Wichita Eagle

The US Supreme Court is all over the place with this. One state argues the same legal question as another for a stay. One is granted, one is not. This is completely outside the protocol for how the Supreme Court is mandated to behave with respect to equal treatment for the states. One state has the right to democratic rule in the interim, abiding by Baker, 1971. Another state does not have that right and must allow gay marriages in spite of its own laws and Baker.

This is frankly just complete bullshit. Judge Sutton spelled it out quite plainly, and correctly. No lower circuit court may overturn even summary judgments like Baker, 1971 without the High Court doing so first. Any weight of law that happens in the interim is given to the existing ruling, until overturned. How simple is this to grasp really? Are we going to completely dissolve the structure of our American legal system now to accomodate the fist-pounding and whining of the LGBT cult?

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS orders that marriage equality may continue in KS while the suit goes ahead.

No list of TPM elected to Congress, both new and overall.

Fail across the board for anti marriage equality and TPM fans.

 

[Silhouette]

SCOTUS orders that marriage equality may continue in KS while the suit goes ahead.

No list of TPM elected to Congress, both new and overall.

Fail across the board for anti marriage equality and TPM fans.

Link? The polygamists in Kansas will be so happy now that their marriages are legally-equal to others.

 

[Silhouette]

OK, here's the link...and a telling blurb...

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Kansas' request for a stay of a lower court's decision striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, effectively allowing same-sex couples to say "I do" in the Sunflower State. Justice Sonia Sotomayor had granted a temporary stay of the lower court's ruling until the entire Supreme Court could review the matter. Buzz Feed reports:
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have granted the stay, according to the brief order issued by the court’s Public Information Office a little past 5 p.m. ET Wednesday. SCOTUS Gives Same-Sex Marriage the Go-Ahead In Kansas Gay News Towleroad

Ah...a clear divide announced from the Court. Interesting...is it customary for the Court to announce publicly that some Justices are opposed to a stay? Wonder if this argument is shaping up to screw the democratic party in 2016? Could Sotomayor be actually signing her party's death sentence with her bleeding heart Rulings? Penny wise, pound foolish... Sotomayor below, kicking it up can-can just following Miley Cyrus's public twerking act where children were present New Year's Eve.

Actions have unintended consequences...

The dems are walking right into this one...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil backs up. Considering Sil's semi-transparent personal interest in this issue THAT is very wise.

The divide indicates the vote is 7-2 at the most and no less than 6-3 for marriage equality at SCOTUS

 

[Silhouette]

Sil backs up. Considering Sil's semi-transparent personal interest in this issue THAT is very wise.

The divide indicates the vote is 7-2 at the most and no less than 6-3 for marriage equality at SCOTUS

Well then, get used to a republican Congress and a republican whitehouse. Because when gay marriage is forced on the whole of society, and worse, the children involved to their detriment, (incentivized homes missing one blood parent 100% of the time) and subsequent maladjusted populations into the future, the GOP will have its brief day in the sun, followed by a slow attrition/death of any moral foudation.

This will lead over two or three generations to the ultimate extinction of any conservative party. So the GOP's game today with playing fast and loose with being lukewarm on its opposition to gay marriage is going to kill themselves with time and how the herd becomes mentally adjusted to even sick new ideas. The kneejerk is going to be less and less on the outrage arsenal they have in cold storage right now...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, no, it won't. That's only true in your fevered brain.

You are the one out of touch and knee jerking.

Please come open with your real reason for opposing Marriage Equality.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, no, it won't. That's only true in your fevered brain.

You are the one out of touch and knee jerking.

Please come open with your real reason for opposing Marriage Equality.

The protection of children into future generations and their right to have both blood parents incentivized into their home? Or the boy I knew that was molested, was untreated from childhood sexual wounds, got HIV from his promiscuity/compulsions and who "killed" hundreds or thousands of other anonymous gay (those that did that to him) contacts before he finally succombed to the long and horrible death from AIDS?

Would either reason, or both, suffice for you?

 

[Syriusly]

The response was filed yesterday, I believe. So far the order keeping the law in place in Kansas is still in effect. The Supreme Court at this stage in the game would have to openly defy the 6th circuit's Opinion and essentially render a verdict in-advance of their own eventual Hearing if they revoked the stay on gay marriage in Kansas.

In so doing, the US Supreme Court would have to undo the way law is enforced and sustained in the federal circuit system. Revoking the ban would mean that it is now legal and OK to "rule or overturn from underneath". The summary judgment of Baker, 1971, and therefore, all other summary judgments by the US Supreme Court, could be undone by the lower courts, shifting power and authority to the under-courts in preference to the Supreme Court.

That would be an impressive collateral damage wrought by the gay marriage steamroller...but there will be more to come...like behaviors in minority, repugnant to the majority, suddenly being able to dictate to the majority...and other "equal marriages" such as polygamy, incest etc. also gaining legal precedent to be able to marry once "A man and A woman" is finally rendered utterly obsolete.

Another stunning example of Silhouette's legal interpretations....

Supreme Court allows same-sex marriages to proceed in Kansas, lifting stay

The Supreme Court on Wednesday night lifted a stay on issuing same-sex marriage licenses in Kansas, making it the 33rd state in which gay unions are allowed.

The decision indicated that the justices are content to allow the list of states where gay marriages are sanctioned to expand, even as it seems more likely that they eventually will have to answer for the nation whether gays have a constitutional right to marry.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said they would have kept the stay in place. None of the justices gave a reason.

 

[Syriusly]

Sil, no, it won't. That's only true in your fevered brain.

You are the one out of touch and knee jerking.

Please come open with your real reason for opposing Marriage Equality.

The protection of children into future generations and their right to have both blood parents incentivized into their home? Or the boy I knew that was molested, was untreated from childhood sexual wounds, got HIV from his promiscuity/compulsions and who "killed" hundreds or thousands of other anonymous gay (those that did that to him) contacts before he finally succombed to the long and horrible death from AIDS?

Would either reason, or both, suffice for you?

a) Same Gender marriage doesn't prevent states from incentivizing marriages that have both 'blood'(genetic?) parents raising their children- but so far states incentivize all marriages.
b) Same Gender marriage would have no effect on your mass murdering buddy.

 

[Syriusly]

OK, here's the link...and a telling blurb...

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied Kansas' request for a stay of a lower court's decision striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, effectively allowing same-sex couples to say "I do" in the Sunflower State. Justice Sonia Sotomayor had granted a temporary stay of the lower court's ruling until the entire Supreme Court could review the matter. Buzz Feed reports:
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have granted the stay, according to the brief order issued by the court’s Public Information Office a little past 5 p.m. ET Wednesday. SCOTUS Gives Same-Sex Marriage the Go-Ahead In Kansas Gay News Towleroad

Ah...a clear divide announced from the Court. Interesting...

For those without advanced math degrees....that means that 2 justices would have granted the stay- and 7 justices allowed same gender marriages to proceed.

 

[Syriusly]

SCOTUS orders that marriage equality may continue in KS while the suit goes ahead.

No list of TPM elected to Congress, both new and overall.

Fail across the board for anti marriage equality and TPM fans.

Link? The polygamists in Kansas will be so happy now that their marriages are legally-equal to others.

Go apply for that polygamy license Silhouette....now that you think its legal....

 

[Syriusly]

[q? Are we going to completely dissolve the structure of our American legal system now to accomodate the fist-pounding and whining of the LGBT cult?

lol-....speaking of fist-pounding and whining....that is some whine fest you have going on there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil's arguments on Windsor, against homosexuals, genetics, and adoptive parenting have all failed.

 

[Skylar]

Sil, no, it won't. That's only true in your fevered brain.

You are the one out of touch and knee jerking.

Please come open with your real reason for opposing Marriage Equality.

The protection of children into future generations and their right to have both blood parents incentivized into their home?

And how is that imaginary 'right to both blood parents' not violated just as completely by say, adoption. Or artificial insemination. Something straight couples do every day.

Once again, you could give a fiddler's fuck about children. They are nothing but a horse for you to ride. And if they don't serve your lamenting about gays, then you completely ignore them. Even if, by your own standards, children are being systematically hurt, have been hurt, and will be hurt by the millions in the future.

In fact, by your own reasoning straight couples that adopt or use artificial insemination are a far, far more dire threat to children. As they make up the vast majority of both adoptions and artificial insemination. But they don't let you rail against gays......so you don't care about these children.

Demonstrating elegantly that its your animus of gays, not your concern over children, that motivates your pseudo-legal rants.

 

[bodecea]

You forgot to post your beloved pictures Sillhy

Well I can either post them here or send them in an amicus brief for the final hearing before SCOTUS. Which do you prefer?

Do that. Should be amusing.

 

[Skylar]

I'm assuming AG Schmidt of Kansas cited Baker, 1971 as did Sutton of the 6th Circuit. That it is now and still the law until a final Decision by SCOTUS.

Interesting standard. By your own reasoning, wouldn't the ruling of the 9th Circuit on gay marriage bans being unconstitutional also be the law until a final decision by the SCOTUS?

Wouldn't that mean that all your inane babble about how Prop 8 is still in effect and gay marriage bans are constitutional in California was nothing but pseudo legal gibberish contradicted by your OWN argument?

You've kinda painted yourself into a corner on this one, Silo.