Justices may take up same-sex marriage cases

Sep 24, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: KJCT

The divisive issue of same-sex marriage was expected to be discussed privately by the Supreme Court Monday, and the justices could soon announce if they will hear a constitutional challenge to a federal law denying financial benefits to gay and lesbian couples.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of224
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

I believe SCOTUS will hear the DOMA cases, but I don't believe they will take the Perry case, just because it is narrowly confined to California and is a different question than with DOMA.

JMPO!!!

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

6

6

6

I expect a ruling that gives Fed benefits to people residing in States allowing Marriage Equality, and withholding them from those who do not. The question will be what about those who change residences from one to the other.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

snyper wrote:
I expect a ruling that gives Fed benefits to people residing in States allowing Marriage Equality, and withholding them from those who do not. The question will be what about those who change residences from one to the other.
Would that apply to us who are legally married in California?

So, as a state grants the right to marry, then those couples would be granted federal recognition, correct?

Seems like a way that SCOTUS could deal with just the immediate issues without dealing with the larger question......interesting approach!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

snyper wrote:
I expect a ruling that gives Fed benefits to people residing in States allowing Marriage Equality, and withholding them from those who do not. The question will be what about those who change residences from one to the other.
Doubtful. Historically the federal govt recognized any marriage which was legally contracted, regardless of where the couple currently resides. That's how it was with married interracial couples who moved to a state where that was banned.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

More important is whether or not the SCOTUS takes any of the DOMA cases.

We'll find out at 9:30 Tue if any have been accepted.

My concern is 2 of the petitions are attempting to skip the circuit appeals court level. The SCOTUS could use that as an excuse to delay taking ANY case for now, and send those 2 back down to the 2nd circuit.

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

If SCOTUS declines to hear ANY of these cases at this time, which I am guessing will be their decision, then gay marriage will once again be legal in California, and I'm guessing those marriages will again begin taking place in California within weeks, if not less.

I think we will know for certain by October 1.

“NOW will ya give me”

Since: Sep 12

some fightin' room ? !

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 24, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

And TucksunJack is BACK !

:)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 24, 2012
 
Only 2 cases were consider by the SCOTUS today, the Prop 8 case and the Windsor case.

The Windsor (DOMA) case will most likely be sent back down to the 2nd circuit to be heard.

The Prop 8 case could just be held until after the election or next year or whenever.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 24, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
More important is whether or not the SCOTUS takes any of the DOMA cases.
We'll find out at 9:30 Tue if any have been accepted.
My concern is 2 of the petitions are attempting to skip the circuit appeals court level. The SCOTUS could use that as an excuse to delay taking ANY case for now, and send those 2 back down to the 2nd circuit.
But will sending those 2 cases back to the 2nd circuit delay them from taking the other DOMA cases?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Sep 24, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Only 2 cases were consider by the SCOTUS today, the Prop 8 case and the Windsor case.
The Windsor (DOMA) case will most likely be sent back down to the 2nd circuit to be heard.
The Prop 8 case could just be held until after the election or next year or whenever.
Are they taking the Prop 8 case?

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Sep 24, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
More important is whether or not the SCOTUS takes any of the DOMA cases.
We'll find out at 9:30 Tue if any have been accepted.
My concern is 2 of the petitions are attempting to skip the circuit appeals court level. The SCOTUS could use that as an excuse to delay taking ANY case for now, and send those 2 back down to the 2nd circuit.
From the Prop 8 Trial Tracker:
As of the time this post published (11 a.m. Eastern time), the Courtís docket showed that both the Prop 8 case (now called Hollingsworth v. Perry) and the DOMA case Windsor v. USA had been distributed for todayís conference, when the Justices will confer and vote on whether they will review the case. The votes of four justices are required for a case to be heard by the Court.
http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 24, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Only 2 cases were consider by the SCOTUS today, the Prop 8 case and the Windsor case.
The Windsor (DOMA) case will most likely be sent back down to the 2nd circuit to be heard.
The Prop 8 case could just be held until after the election or next year or whenever.
The Windsor case is due to be heard at the 2nd court of appeals on the 27th of September.........so, it may be sent back.......her lawyers wanted to find a resolution to her case before her health failed!!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Sep 24, 2012
 
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
But will sending those 2 cases back to the 2nd circuit delay them from taking the other DOMA cases?
That would be my guess. I think the SCOTUS is in no hurry whatsoever to take on the DOMA cases, and this gives them the perfect excuse to hold the Gill & Mass cases until all 5 case have been ruled on by their respective circuits.

That could easily push us into 2014 before they decide to take any DOMA cases.

My understanding is they can hold cases however long they want.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 24, 2012
 
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
From the Prop 8 Trial Tracker:
As of the time this post published (11 a.m. Eastern time), the Courtís docket showed that both the Prop 8 case (now called Hollingsworth v. Perry) and the DOMA case Windsor v. USA had been distributed for todayís conference, when the Justices will confer and vote on whether they will review the case. The votes of four justices are required for a case to be heard by the Court.
http://www.prop8trialtracker.com/
But they don't HAVE to vote; they can just hold them for another time- i.e. after the election.

We'll know at 9:30 am tomorrow if they took either the Prop 8 or Windsor case, but if they're not on that list then we'll have to wait until Oct 1st to see what they did (or didn't do).

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Sep 24, 2012
 
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Windsor case is due to be heard at the 2nd court of appeals on the 27th of September.........so, it may be sent back.......her lawyers wanted to find a resolution to her case before her health failed!!!
I doubt her health will have any impact on the SCOTUS; many people have died waiting for their cases to be heard.

I that's a good reason to put constitutional limits on how long cases can be drug out, but I suppose the SCOTUS would rule that an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers!

Not to be pessimistic, but it's looking more & more like another long wait for justice.

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Sep 24, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be my guess. I think the SCOTUS is in no hurry whatsoever to take on the DOMA cases, and this gives them the perfect excuse to hold the Gill & Mass cases until all 5 case have been ruled on by their respective circuits.
That could easily push us into 2014 before they decide to take any DOMA cases.
My understanding is they can hold cases however long they want.
I don't believe they can......and with both Boehner and the President sending in briefs......I'm not totally sure that they won't take at least 3 of the DOMA cases.

I guess we will have to see what happens tomorrow!!!

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Sep 24, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
But they don't HAVE to vote; they can just hold them for another time- i.e. after the election.
We'll know at 9:30 am tomorrow if they took either the Prop 8 or Windsor case, but if they're not on that list then we'll have to wait until Oct 1st to see what they did (or didn't do).
Again the general thought process is that they won't hear the Perry case.....but we've waited this long......another week won't matter......ugh:(

“IT'S TIME TO ELIMINATE”

Since: Mar 11

PROP 8 AND DOMA!!!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Sep 24, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt her health will have any impact on the SCOTUS; many people have died waiting for their cases to be heard.
I that's a good reason to put constitutional limits on how long cases can be drug out, but I suppose the SCOTUS would rule that an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers!
Not to be pessimistic, but it's looking more & more like another long wait for justice.
I hope not!!!

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Sep 24, 2012
 
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Would that apply to us who are legally married in California?
So, as a state grants the right to marry, then those couples would be granted federal recognition, correct?
Seems like a way that SCOTUS could deal with just the immediate issues without dealing with the larger question......interesting approach!!!
It's how the Military deals with social question. The personnel (and dependents) are subject to all local Laws which do not come in direct conflict with the UCMJ. When they are transferred to a different post, the local Laws apply.

It would be cumbersome and set up lots of conflicts, but the way the SCOTUS has been deciding things for the past couple of decades, I wouldn't put it past them. Not at all.

“... from a ...”

Since: Mar 09

GREAT HEIGHT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Sep 24, 2012
 
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again the general thought process is that they won't hear the Perry case.....but we've waited this long......another week won't matter......ugh:(
If the SCOTUS doesn't, expect our opposition to gear up for their next try along different lines.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of224
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••