Prop. 8: Supreme Court may redefine gay rights

nhjeff wrote:

A couple of points of procedure:
If the proponents skip the en banc hearing and go directly to SCOTUS, but SCOTUS declines, do they get a second chance at an en banc panel?

No, the proponents only have the option of seeking an en banc ruling now, if they decide against taking that route, they are stuck with whatever the SCOTUS decides.

nhjeff wrote:

Also, if one of the judges recuses, doesn't a 4-4 split uphold the appeals panel?

I had to look this one up. Ties default to the last lower court's ruling in the case, but such splits cannot be used as precedent that all the other lower courts are bound by.

Adam in AZ wrote:

<quoted text>
On what conceivable grounds would a justice recuse in this case?

Well, the fact that Justice Kagan looks just like Cyrano Jones may be reason enough.

:)

Adam in AZ wrote:

<quoted text>
On what conceivable grounds would a justice recuse in this case?

Justice Antonin Scalia has already registered his legal opinion on this issue, both within his dissenting remarks on Lawrence vs Texas, and on news media after the controversial ruling. However, considering it is both unlikely that he will recuse himself on that basis, in addition to that he will likely not be impeached over the decision, that Scalia would recuse himself is a pipe-dream. It ain't gonna happen even if it is is improper for him to preside over the case.

Josh in New Orleans wrote:

<quoted text>
Justice Antonin Scalia has already registered his legal opinion on this issue, both within his dissenting remarks on Lawrence vs Texas, and on news media after the controversial ruling. However, considering it is both unlikely that he will recuse himself on that basis, in addition to that he will likely not be impeached over the decision, that Scalia would recuse himself is a pipe-dream. It ain't gonna happen even if it is is improper for him to preside over the case.

It's NOT improper for him to preside over such a case if it comes before SCOTUS. MY opinion in such a case would be diametrically opposed to Justice Scalia's, but there is certainly nothing to warrant a recusal from such a case by him.

And I remind you that he, like me, is ALWAYS Fair. And Balanced.

:)

Josh in New Orleans wrote:

<quoted text>
Justice Antonin Scalia has already registered his legal opinion on this issue, both within his dissenting remarks on Lawrence vs Texas, and on news media after the controversial ruling. However, considering it is both unlikely that he will recuse himself on that basis, in addition to that he will likely not be impeached over the decision, that Scalia would recuse himself is a pipe-dream. It ain't gonna happen even if it is is improper for him to preside over the case.

But if one knows his opinion going into a case that might come before him.....the plaintiff's lawyers could ask that he step aside......now, whether they get that is a huge question!!!

Rick in Kansas wrote:

<quoted text>No, the proponents only have the option of seeking an en banc ruling now, if they decide against taking that route, they are stuck with whatever the SCOTUS decides.
<quoted text>I had to look this one up. Ties default to the last lower court's ruling in the case, but such splits cannot be used as precedent that all the other lower courts are bound by.

Oooo, that is tricky. Even if the case defaults to the lower court's ruling, apparently, the injunction was not left intact. How would that play out? I assume if the law was ruled unconstitutional then it would no longer be enforcable, but without an official injunction, might it have to play out in courts a bit further?

Josh in New Orleans wrote:

<quoted text>
Oooo, that is tricky. Even if the case defaults to the lower court's ruling, apparently, the injunction was not left intact. How would that play out? I assume if the law was ruled unconstitutional then it would no longer be enforcable, but without an official injunction, might it have to play out in courts a bit further?

The 9th UPHELD Judge Walker's ruling and that ruling would go into effect......basically removing Section 7.5 from the California Constitution!!!

At least that's what I believe Rick was saying!!!

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
But if one knows his opinion going into a case that might come before him.....the plaintiff's lawyers could ask that he step aside......now, whether they get that is a huge question!!!

I am certain the argument will be made, but am doubtful it will be sucessfull regardless of the apparent truth. Personally, Scalia represents to me everything that is imbalanced in the balance of power. There are things a Supreme Court Justice is not supposed to do, yet he gets away with such violations time and time again. Short of some controversy raising questions about his personal morals and ethics, I think any chance at Scalia being forced out of this case is nil. If it were not enough that because of the Slaughterhouse cases, he believes there really is no such thing as equality for all to begin with, anything short of egregious impropriety leaves him immune to prosecution. He act's like he's above the law and get's a away with it.

Josh in New Orleans wrote:

<quoted text>
I am certain the argument will be made, but am doubtful it will be sucessfull regardless of the apparent truth. Personally, Scalia represents to me everything that is imbalanced in the balance of power. There are things a Supreme Court Justice is not supposed to do, yet he gets away with such violations time and time again. Short of some controversy raising questions about his personal morals and ethics, I think any chance at Scalia being forced out of this case is nil. If it were not enough that because of the Slaughterhouse cases, he believes there really is no such thing as equality for all to begin with, anything short of egregious impropriety leaves him immune to prosecution. He act's like he's above the law and get's a away with it.

I would agree with ya......maybe just maybe he might grow a soul.......but that's a BIG maybe!!!

Tucksun Jack wrote:

<quoted text>
It's NOT improper for him to preside over such a case if it comes before SCOTUS. MY opinion in such a case would be diametrically opposed to Justice Scalia's, but there is certainly nothing to warrant a recusal from such a case by him.
And I remind you that he, like me, is ALWAYS Fair. And Balanced.
:)

Thank you for your opinion Mr. Fox News, but Supreme Court Justices are not supposed to render their opinion on an issue if it is outside the scope of the case which they have already considered. Lawrence vs Texas had everything to do with whether it was constitutional to arrest and charge two people for having gay sex. It was an issue that had nothing whatsoever to do with marriage equality, but forseeing that the court had entierely ruined the legal precident for rational basis review only for issues regarding sexual orientation, Justice Scalia decided to render his opinions on how such a decision in the context of Lawrence versus Texas virtually legalized same-sex marriage. It was not a proper context in which such an opinion should have been issued, but the ironic part, is that Scalia's own analysis just might come back to haunt him in this case. However, recusing himself is about as likely as whales growing wings.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
I would agree with ya......maybe just maybe he might grow a soul.......but that's a BIG maybe!!!

I disagree, that man would not grow a soul before the devil himself decided to become a Buddhist monk and praise Jesus.

Josh in New Orleans wrote:

<quoted text>
I disagree, that man would not grow a soul before the devil himself decided to become a Buddhist monk and praise Jesus.

I said it would be a BIG MF If.........lol!!!

I do like your thought process though.......lol!!!

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
The 9th UPHELD Judge Walker's ruling and that ruling would go into effect......basically removing Section 7.5 from the California Constitution!!!
At least that's what I believe Rick was saying!!!

Most confoundingly, though, the ruling of the 9th District Appeals, might have affirmed Walker's ruling, but the prior injunction issued was already ruled against, and the Appeals court made no mention of the injunction whatsoever. Therefore, I wonder if it will be necessary, provided that SCOTUS does not take up the issue, for a lower court to consider the issue of the injunction that Walker issued.

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
The 9th UPHELD Judge Walker's ruling and that ruling would go into effect......basically removing Section 7.5 from the California Constitution!!!
At least that's what I believe Rick was saying!!!

Okay, well... If Rick says so, I'll go with that. In my experience, he's been absolutly prophetic in his analysis of this case.

Josh in New Orleans wrote:

<quoted text>
I am certain the argument will be made, but am doubtful it will be sucessfull regardless of the apparent truth. Personally, Scalia represents to me everything that is imbalanced in the balance of power. There are things a Supreme Court Justice is not supposed to do, yet he gets away with such violations time and time again. Short of some controversy raising questions about his personal morals and ethics, I think any chance at Scalia being forced out of this case is nil. If it were not enough that because of the Slaughterhouse cases, he believes there really is no such thing as equality for all to begin with, anything short of egregious impropriety leaves him immune to prosecution. He act's like he's above the law and get's a away with it.

You seem to forget that we have a separation of powers in our federal government. As a completely separate branch of the federal government, the members of SCOTUS are free to make up their own rules, independent of the rules of the other 2 branches.

If a Justice does something REALLY egregious, they can always be removed from office (several have been). But I certainly don't think he has said anything wrong, nor done anything wrong. And I certainly have not heard of anyone in the House of Senate (the only ones who really matter in such a controversey) saying he's done anything wrong.

Although I certainly disagree with him absolutely regarding gay rights in general, gay marriage in particular, and a number of other issues, I certainly don't think he's done anything to warrant removal from the court, and I hope he stays on SCOTUS as long as he wishes to.

Although I will say that I believe some of his decisions and pronouncements are influenced far too much by his Roman Catholicsim (And I think most of you here know my opinions of Roman Catholicism).

Mitt s Airtight Dog Crate wrote:

<quoted text>
I tried to find what I was thinking of and it appears to be a written statement in reply to Senators she made when named for Solicitor General, and it was about defending DOMA as SG.
Wikipedia says she said what I said - that the Constitution does not grant a right to same sex marriage - but that hardly means anything. I didn't even go to that page.
My intended thrust, anyway, was that Kagan would find as a Supreme Court Justice some equal protection or liberty justification for marriage equality, rather than claiming the Constitution grants a right to marriage equality. To me that's sort of a word game. I'm sure to a lawyer that's business as usual.

You are correct. The anti-gays are simply taking Kagan's statement out of context. That's okay though, let them believe she opposes marriage equality. They'll be the only ones suprised when she votes with the rest of the liberals on every marriage case which comes before the court.

crossing my fingers the supreme court justices were raised the RIGHT way

Josh in New Orleans wrote:

<quoted text>
Most confoundingly, though, the ruling of the 9th District Appeals, might have affirmed Walker's ruling, but the prior injunction issued was already ruled against, and the Appeals court made no mention of the injunction whatsoever. Therefore, I wonder if it will be necessary, provided that SCOTUS does not take up the issue, for a lower court to consider the issue of the injunction that Walker issued.

What injunction are you speaking of? Judge Walker ruled Prop 8 was unconstitutional and used both rational review and heighten scrutiny.......he stayed his ruling, then lifted his stay, so not sure what injunction you are mentioning.

jusathought wrote:

crossing my fingers the supreme court justices were raised the RIGHT way

Being raised right has NOTHING to do with getting the ruling you want!!!

This is about laws and the Constitution!!!

RnL2008 wrote:

<quoted text>
Being raised right has NOTHING to do with getting the ruling you want!!!
This is about laws and the Constitution!!!

being raised right has everything to do with ruling, we elect people based on morals and opinions,...which are given to us from our parents. every now and then a bad apple makes his way into the bunch. being gay wasnt a problem when the constitution was written, people then werent worried about being politically correct.