Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Look, what you all need to understand about this whole thing is . . .

Wait.

There's something outside my window . . .

It seems to be a velociraptor. With a guy riding on its back. Wearing a Waffen SS uniform.

Excuse me, I'll get back to you.

 

[cjh]

Yet the judge declared Prop 8 illegal and it's supporting voters mentally unbalanced in so many words.

Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence v Texas kills any hopes he might rule with the proponents.

So where in the 14th Amendment did the states amend article III Section2 and grant concurrent jurisdiction to the lower courts:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

If what you say is true what is the purpose of 28 U.S.C. 1251?

you think ted olson and david boies don't understand federal jurisdiction?

look at the style of the case. was the state of california named as a defendant? habeas cases work the same way--you sue the government official allegedly holding the petitioner in violation of constitutional law.

the 14th amendment makes it clear that the federal constitution burdens the states with equal protection. 42 usc sec. 1983 empowers federal courts to exercise jurisdiction over claims against state actors for alleged violations of federal constitutional rights.

 

[cjh]

<snip>Kennedy's opinion in Lawrence v Texas kills any hopes he might rule with the proponents.<snip>

i had to go back and look. he explicitly left the door open, concluding that particular issue could be addressed under due process analysis.

As an alternative argument in this case, counsel for the petitioners and some amici contend that Romer provides the basis for declaring the Texas statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. That is a tenable argument, but we conclude the instant case requires us to address whether Bowers itself has continuing validity. Were we to hold the statute invalid under the Equal Protection Clause some might question whether a prohibition would be valid if drawn differently, say, to prohibit the conduct both between same-sex and different-sex participants.

Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/539/558/case.html

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You said this:




I said this:



You came back and asked me this:




Why would I have to answer a question you apparently already knew the answer to, since you asserted it yourself?

When should I expect your answer to the other one?

 

[cjh]

of the laws.

Read Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in Lawrence.

 

[Sean]

I'm hardly the con law expert that CJ is but I find it impossible to understand how anything in the constitution can be used to justify discriminating against a section of the citizenry based on their sexual orientation.

 

[busybody..]

of the laws.

Read Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion in Lawrence.

Hey, Dishonest JUAN

for YOU

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=34870897&posted=1#post34870897

and I toldya

Dont bring that CUNT into anything

She wants WORLD LAW to superced US law

 

[Byron In Exile]

I'm hardly the con law expert that CJ is but I find it impossible to understand how anything in the constitution can be used to justify discriminating against a section of the citizenry based on their sexual orientation.

It's the opposite. The question is, if the California Constitution discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation, does the US Constitution protect them from that?

If so, then Article 1 Section 7.5 of the California Constitution is null and void.

Also, then, would be similar laws in any other State.

This is a pretty big deal. It's not been dealt with at the Federal level before.

 

[Liar]

I'm hardly the con law expert that CJ is but I find it impossible to understand how anything in the constitution can be used to justify discriminating against a section of the citizenry based on their sexual orientation.

Forget about sexual orientation. Banning same sex marriage causes discrinimation against two groups of people.

The first is men. Because they are not allowed to do something that women are allowed to do - marry men.

The second is women.

 

[Sean]

It's the opposite. The question is, if the California Constitution discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation, does the US Constitution protect them from that?

If so, then Article 1 Section 7.5 of the California Constitution is null and void.

Also, then, would be similar laws in any other State.

This is a pretty big deal. It's not been dealt with at the Federal level before.

And I can't see how the CA article can possibly be legal under the US Constitution.

 

[cjh]

It's the opposite. The question is, if the California Constitution discriminates against people based on their sexual orientation, does the US Constitution protect them from that?

If so, then Article 1 Section 7.5 of the California Constitution is null and void.

Also, then, would be similar laws in any other State.

This is a pretty big deal. It's not been dealt with at the Federal level before.

it's a huge fucking deal.

i think the timing is off for the proponents.

death penalty abolitionists used the federal courts instead of letting things wind down as they had been in state legislatures and state court systems.

they got the death penalty declared unconstitutional as it was applied. and in the process, pissed off a lot of states, causing them to rewrite their laws and to crank up the machinery again.

even though the court is supposedly insulated from the will of the people, the justices are bound to pay attention to the overall mood.

 

[HB1965]

it's a huge fucking deal.

i think the timing is off for the proponents.

death penalty abolitionists used the federal courts instead of letting things wind down as they had been in state legislatures and state court systems.

they got the death penalty declared unconstitutional as it was applied. and in the process, pissed off a lot of states, causing them to rewrite their laws and to crank up the machinery again.

even though the court is supposedly insulated from the will of the people, the justices are bound to pay attention to the overall mood.

What's your sense about how far will this will go? Do you think SCOTUS will hear it?

 

[cjh]

What's your sense about how far will this will go? Do you think SCOTUS will hear it?

i think almost absolutely.

whoever loses on appeal will carry it forward.

 

[HB1965]

i think almost absolutely.

whoever loses on appeal will carry it forward.

What do you think the result will be?

 

[cjh]

What do you think the result will be?

dunno.

it's in kennedy's hands.

as you can see from that little excerpt from the lawrence opinion that i quoted, he's been sympathetic to arguments raised by gay petitioners.

but it is a huge fucking deal.

if the advocates lose, it'll be another decade, i bet, before they can get the issue in front of SCOTUS.

 

[Byron In Exile]

i think almost absolutely.

whoever loses on appeal will carry it forward.

Well, it'll get there.

The only way they won't end up hearing it is if they refuse to, and kick it back.

 

[cjh]

Well, it'll get there.

The only way they won't end up hearing it is if they refuse to, and kick it back.

i can't imagine them refusing cert. it would cause mayhem in the states.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

i can't imagine them refusing cert. it would cause mayhem in the states.

There's already mayhem in the states.

 

[Byron In Exile]

i can't imagine them refusing cert. it would cause mayhem in the states.

While I think they would be likely to disregard any mayhem their decision might cause, as they've shown in the past, I do agree that it's highly unlikely they'd refuse it, just based on its merits.

 

[cjh]

There's already mayhem in the states.

exactly.

 

[Byron In Exile]

There's already mayhem in the states.

Son, there's always been mayhem in the States.

 

[Ishmael]

It's obvious that this decision is going to end up in the Supreme Court. I, for one, hope they reverse the decision.

This is a decision that should properly be decided by the people of a state or the legislative assembly of the state, not by judicial fiat. This decision is highly divisive and will remain so just as Roe v Wade has if allowed to stand. Some years ago California passed a similar ballot initiative by 62%, the most recent vote passed by only 52%. It's clear to see which way sentiment is trending.

The argument before the bench, and indeed the ruling itself, is filled with a considerable amount of emotional appeal and invective towards those who oppose this ruling. The judgement specifically addressed those who voted for the proposition. This is a new element in the debate.

The argument that, "loving, caring, couples of the same sex should be allowed to marry is certainly compelling on an emotional level. But if the threshold is, 'loving, and caring', then why should marriage be restricted to any particular combination? Why not sons and mothers, or fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters, polygamy and polyandry? It would be difficult for anyone to argue that those relationships are not 'loving and caring.' I suppose that it's safe to say that human-animal unions would be off the table in that if might be difficult to get an animal to affirm the depth of its 'love and caring.'

If the federal courts remove from the states the ability to define what constitutes a legal union then the court has opened the door for petitions for any of the above possible unions and the people and legislatures be damned. Afterall to outlaw any of the other possibilities would come across as 'hateful and capricious' on the part of the state or its people. And if the 'right' to marriage is indeed a human 'right' then how can any body of people, their representatives, or the courts deny any of the above possible relationships?

This is a Pandoras box that need not, and should not, be opened by the federal courts.

Ishmael

 

[Sean]

Jesus H Christ, how can you people run a country with fifty different sets of laws based on which side of an arbitrary imaginary line on the ground you happen to live on?