I'm Sure Lit Lawyers Will Tell Us...

[unregistered]

 

[cjh]

Oh yes they will, because they are more learned, right?


SCALIA: 'When Did It Become Unconstitutional To Exclude Homosexual Couples From Marriage?'
Brett LoGiurato | Mar. 26, 2013, 1:41 PM

During oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Ted Olson had a pointed exchange over whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Scalia's argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically, it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples.

"We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

Olson countered that with a question of his own, bringing up two past high-profile cases involving discrimination.

"When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?" Olson asked.

The two went back and forth, with Scalia repeatedly questioning when, specifically, it became unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marrying. Olson argued back, but ended up conceding that there was no specific date.

"Well, how am I supposed to how to decide a case, then, if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?" Scalia said.

"Because in the case that's before you today, the citizens of California decide — after the California Supreme Court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in California — then the Californians decided in Proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want those people to be able to get married."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-prop-8-case-supreme-court-2013-3#ixzz2OgQduAdz

"When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?"

 

[mercury14]

Oh yes they will, because they are more learned, right?

Tell us again about how you think it's wrong for elected officials to govern against the will of the people?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Oh yes they will, because they are more learned, right?


SCALIA: 'When Did It Become Unconstitutional To Exclude Homosexual Couples From Marriage?'
Brett LoGiurato | Mar. 26, 2013, 1:41 PM

During oral arguments today at the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia and attorney Ted Olson had a pointed exchange over whether same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Scalia's argument, which was advanced by Chief Justice John Roberts before him, was that when the institution of marriage developed historically, it was not done with the explicit intent of excluding gay and lesbian couples.

"We don't prescribe law for the future," Scalia said. "We decide what the law is. I'm curious, when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868? When the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted?"

Olson countered that with a question of his own, bringing up two past high-profile cases involving discrimination.

"When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?" Olson asked.

The two went back and forth, with Scalia repeatedly questioning when, specifically, it became unconstitutional to bar gay couples from marrying. Olson argued back, but ended up conceding that there was no specific date.

"Well, how am I supposed to how to decide a case, then, if you can't give me a date when the Constitution changes?" Scalia said.

"Because in the case that's before you today, the citizens of California decide — after the California Supreme Court decided that individuals had a right to get married irrespective of their sexual orientation in California — then the Californians decided in Proposition 8, wait a minute, we don't want those people to be able to get married."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-prop-8-case-supreme-court-2013-3#ixzz2OgQduAdz

Not much to argue here, Vette. I'm sure you don't want the government interfering with who can & can't enter contracts.

 

[cjh]

When did it become illegal to discriminate against women under the Bill of Rights?

 

[hobbit.]

the lawyers will side with the clergy. the rest will have to live with it or fight it. as has always been, as will always be.

 

[LadyVer]

When did it become illegal to discriminate against women under the Bill of Rights?

I'd like to know that one.

 

[koalabear]

"When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools?"

Shaddup pereg! Your bro mercMORON is handling the case.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Not much to argue here, Vette. I'm sure you don't want the government interfering with who can & can't enter contracts.

Vetty has been pretty adamant that the rights of old, white men shall not be infringed under the Constitution. Everything else is negotiable.

 

[Wrong Element]

I think the least likely outcome of this case is one where the Court rules that there's a constitutional right to same sex marriage in 50 states.

The DOMA case is more interesting to me, though, since it's going to force most of our federalism cultists into either massive cognitive dissonance, or into accepting that DOMA has to go.

 

[KyleW]

Olson made the argument for us and it's in that article.

 

[Sean]

I think the least likely outcome of this case is one where the Court rules that there's a constitutional right to same sex marriage in 50 states.

The DOMA case is more interesting to me, though, since it's going to force most of our federalism cultists into either massive cognitive dissonance, or into accepting that DOMA has to go.

I think the most logical outcome would be that Prop 8 survives and DOMA bites the dust. But the SCOTUS seems to disregard logic when it comes to social issues and the law.

 

[cjh]

I think the most logical outcome would be that Prop 8 survives and DOMA bites the dust. But the SCOTUS seems to disregard logic when it comes to social issues and the law.

The pundits say that one possibility is that the Prop. 8 cert will be dismissed for lack of standing. In that case, the court would hold that only the California AG had standing to cert it up.

 

[JohnnySavage]

I think the most logical outcome would be that Prop 8 survives and DOMA bites the dust. But the SCOTUS seems to disregard logic when it comes to social issues and the law.

That's what I think will happen, although it's hard to see how the court will justify allowing voters to decide a certain class of people can't have a fundamental right.

My State allows same-sex marriage, and those folks should be allowed to file their federal income taxes as married... because they are.

 

[Sean]

The pundits say that one possibility is that the Prop. 8 cert will be dismissed for lack of standing. In that case, the court would hold that only the California AG had standing to cert it up.

Doesn't that open another whole can of worms wrt the tenth?

That's what I think will happen, although it's hard to see how the court will justify allowing voters to decide a certain class of people can't have a fundamental right.

I couldn't see how they classed corporations as citizens, but they did.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Doesn't that open another whole can of worms wrt the tenth?


I couldn't see how they classed corporations as citizens, but they did.

Since the rise of the robber-barons, corporations have been considered legal entities that can sue and be sued. "Citizenship" as was defined in Citizens United didn't grant them citizenship in the layman sense; it affirmed that in the basket of rights a corporation has, it also has the right to free speech.

 

[Sean]

Since the rise of the robber-barons, corporations have been considered legal entities that can sue and be sued. "Citizenship" as was defined in Citizens United didn't grant them citizenship in the layman sense; it affirmed that in the basket of rights a corporation has, it also has the right to free speech.

I'm not about to rehash the CU decision again, but I think it was the most bizarre reading of the law I've ever seen.

 

[cjh]

Doesn't that open another whole can of worms wrt the tenth?

Because the California Supreme Court held that they had standing? Ask Al Gore whether SCOTUS defers to state supreme court rulings on state law.

 

[KingOrfeo]

When did it become illegal to discriminate against women under the Bill of Rights?

In hindsight, with the passage of the 14th Amendment, with its "Equal Protection" clause -- more or less -- but, unlike race, discrimination by sex comes under only an intermediate scrutiny test.

 

[cjh]

Since the rise of the robber-barons, corporations have been considered legal entities that can sue and be sued. "Citizenship" as was defined in Citizens United didn't grant them citizenship in the layman sense; it affirmed that in the basket of rights a corporation has, it also has the right to free speech.

So, do they have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent?

 

[Sean]

Because the California Supreme Court held that they had standing? Ask Al Gore whether SCOTUS defers to state supreme court rulings on state law.

Point.

 

[cjh]

In hindsight, with the passage of the 14th Amendment, with its "Equal Protection" clause -- more or less -- but, unlike race, discrimination by sex comes under only an intermediate scrutiny test.

Heh. With hindsight and sleight-of-hand: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[Sean]

So, do they have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent?

Ooh, wouldn't it be fun if some fucker tried that at the next corporate manslaughter case that turns up?

 

[JohnnySavage]

So, do they have a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent?

I don't recall it having ever come up, probably because you can't put a corporation in jail. A corporation can be held criminally liable though, but the punishment vis-a-vis the corporation is a fine.


A case could arise where a criminal case came up and the board of directors refused to testify in their roles within the corporation - but then they would have individual liability.

 

[cjh]

I don't recall it having ever come up, probably because you can't put a corporation in jail. A corporation can be held criminally liable though, but the punishment vis-a-vis the corporation is a fine.


A case could arise where a criminal case came up and the board of directors refused to, testify in their roles within the corporation - but then they would have individual liability.

It has, actually, and in the context of a closely-held corporation, to boot: http://whitecollarcrime.foxrothschi...corporation-has-no-fifth-amendment-privilege/

I don't think CU reconciled the opinion.