|
Concerned Citizen posted:It's hard to believe they WON'T rule. For one, if a Circuit Court rules same sex marriage legal, SCOTUS will have no choice but to intervene. They won't allow different parts of the country to exist under different federal law interpretations. (Previous rulings have been based on state law, not federal law. The exception to this is the prop 8 ruling, in which the court likely would have ruled except the folks defending the law did not have standing). And a ruling for would be a clear circuit split, as the Eighth (in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning) have already ruled against, back in 2006.
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
TinTower posted:And a ruling for would be a clear circuit split, as the Eighth (in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning) have already ruled against, back in 2006. Do "splits" among court decisions like this have to be for the exact same reason, for a higher appeals court to take it up? Like, say in this case the 8th Circuit judge ruled against arguments A, B, and C, but the Utah judge ruled for arguments A and B, but not C, and also ruled for argument D, I'm curious if that changes anything. Do the higher courts: refuse to take up any of it, only rule on arguments A and B, poo poo-can both rulings with their own, or something else entirely?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Do "splits" among court decisions like this have to be for the exact same reason, for a higher appeals court to take it up? Like, say in this case the 8th Circuit judge ruled against arguments A, B, and C, but the Utah judge ruled for arguments A and B, but not C, and also ruled for argument D, I'm curious if that changes anything. Do the higher courts: refuse to take up any of it, only rule on arguments A and B, poo poo-can both rulings with their own, or something else entirely? The major sticking point appears to be Baker v. Nelson (Bruning and Sevick says it still holds, Perry and Kitchen not), along with the equal protection arguments and scrutiny level question. It's hard to find anyway of solving the split without solving all three.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Do "splits" among court decisions like this have to be for the exact same reason, for a higher appeals court to take it up? Like, say in this case the 8th Circuit judge ruled against arguments A, B, and C, but the Utah judge ruled for arguments A and B, but not C, and also ruled for argument D, I'm curious if that changes anything. Do the higher courts: refuse to take up any of it, only rule on arguments A and B, poo poo-can both rulings with their own, or something else entirely? Generally the law being seriously different between circuits means the Supreme Court needs to standardize it, and that all the arguments have been mulled over by the lower courts enough. So yeah, in this situation there'd be a circuit split and the Supreme Court would be more likely to intervene. However it's clear that when they do, they'll legalize it but Kennedy may believe waiting a year or two is a better option. And the Supreme Court doesn't have to hear the case even if there is a circuit split.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Generally the law being seriously different between circuits means the Supreme Court needs to standardize it, and that all the arguments have been mulled over by the lower courts enough. So yeah, in this situation there'd be a circuit split and the Supreme Court would be more likely to intervene. Or they could hear it and postpone actually deciding
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
So I have to ask - why is Utah appealing the ruling then? It seems like a strategically idiotic move. If they take it to the 10th and lose, it causes multiple other states to lose as well. If they win, it's a circuit split that goes to SCOTUS where the odds are that they're going to lose as well (given past jurisprudence) and take the rest of the country with them. Their best case scenario seems to be hoping that they'll win both in the 10th and SCOTUS, in spite of all evidence, and even then they're likely to personally fail as Utah will have had two years worth of marriages and then the Prop 8 judgement will likely demand that Utah can't take the step back. Am I missing something or is this entirely a lose-lose situation for SSM opponents?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
Because they "have" to? I mean you typically want a state to defend its laws in court.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
Because at this point Utah has legalized gay marriage and they don't care about whether other states do or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:The exception to this is the prop 8 ruling, in which the court likely would have ruled except the folks defending the law did not have standing). I've always been curious, what if California had defended the law, but intentionally took a dive? Would that basically end with the disbarment of the state AG? e:Oh hey new page.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
Also because most elected officials in Utah who aren't on record howling in protest about the court ruling will not be re-elected, regardless of the eventual outcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:I've always been curious, what if California had defended the law, but intentionally took a dive? Would that basically end with the disbarment of the state AG? By all accounts, the Obama administration's defense in the Windsor cases, before they pulled out, was staggeringly bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Question for the appellate lawyers: will the two 10th Circuit judges that denied the stay be automatically assigned to hearing this case? Because if not, Utah has a non-zero chance of winning, as the 10th is considered on of the more conservative circuits and could draw a favorable panel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:So I have to ask - why is Utah appealing the ruling then? It seems like a strategically idiotic move. If they take it to the 10th and lose, it causes multiple other states to lose as well. If they win, it's a circuit split that goes to SCOTUS where the odds are that they're going to lose as well (given past jurisprudence) and take the rest of the country with them. Their best case scenario seems to be hoping that they'll win both in the 10th and SCOTUS, in spite of all evidence, and even then they're likely to personally fail as Utah will have had two years worth of marriages and then the Prop 8 judgement will likely demand that Utah can't take the step back. Am I missing something or is this entirely a lose-lose situation for SSM opponents? For that movement to have the realization that they should not fight the judgment, they'd first have to adopt a strategic position that wasn't just "FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!", and they'd have to have the humility to accept that they would live with the ruling in order to "spare" the rest of the country. Neither one of those is particularly in line with the general character of the Republican base, which will drive their judgment as elected officials in Utah. On the first point, consider the championing of Cruz's defund Obamacare push that caused the government shutdown, even though it was very evident that there was nothing to be won by pushing the battle. Instead, Cruz got popularity from fighting an unwinnable battle, and the Republicans who put an end to the battle and saved their reputation among the general public are seen as RINOs who compromised away their values. That might be the best move Utah realistically has, but if Utah did that, the electorate would tear those officials to pieces and elect new officials this year who would run on how not appealing was a mistake that should disqualify those people from being re-elected. thefncrow fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Dec 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 15:42
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:For that movement to have the realization that they should not fight the judgment, they'd first have to adopt a strategic position that wasn't just "FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!", and they'd have to have the humility to accept that they would live with the ruling in order to "spare" the rest of the country. Neither one of those is particularly in line with the general character of the Republican base, which will drive their judgment as elected officials in Utah. Right, so I'm not missing some scenario that they'll come out on top with - it really is just short-sighted thrashing that can do nothing more than hurt their own cause. Kind of ironic - the Utah GOP may just end up causing the biggest step forward in SSM in the next year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Tempest_56 posted:Right, so I'm not missing some scenario that they'll come out on top with - it really is just short-sighted thrashing that can do nothing more than hurt their own cause. Groupthink is a hell of a thing. Remember, they are frequently convinced that conservatives abound all around, and elections get stolen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
The New York Times has a nice piece up today running down what is at stake with Indiana and the proposed amendment HJR-6:quote:...
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Someone will probably correct me on this but it is my understanding that a circuit ruling would not strike the law down district wide, only Utah. It would set precedent for the district and it would only be a matter of time until other challenges worked their way through in the district but it could still take years of legal bureaucracy
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Strictly speaking that's true for every jurisdiction. There were lawsuits for years after the Loving SCOTUS decision, with places like Oklahoma basically saying "gently caress the Supreme Court, we're not handing out marriage licenses to interracial couples until they show up with court orders." So if a particular jurisdiction, governor, or county clerk wants to act like assholes, they can do that even though they lose in the end. But as to your question: the 10th circuit ruling against Utah would only affect Utah immediately, but five minutes later people will file lawsuits in the other states covered by the 10th and cite the Utah case as binding precedent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Someone will probably correct me on this but it is my understanding that a circuit ruling would not strike the law down district wide, only Utah. It would set precedent for the district and it would only be a matter of time until other challenges worked their way through in the district but it could still take years of legal bureaucracy That's not correct. If the 10th Circuit rules that bans on gay marriage violate the Constitution, it's precedent for every state in the 10th. They'd each need individual lawsuits to overturn their respective amendments and bans but they would just point to the 10th Circuit case and demand summary judgement, which they'd get. But as a matter of law the 10th Circuit decision would apply to every state in its jurisdiction, they'd just need to jump through the proper procedural hoops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
The last of the Utah counties holding out on issuing marriage licenses have given up and are now handing out licenses for gay couples. The state's obviously not done fighting, but the counties have thrown in the towel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 23:11
|
|
|
Sweeney Tom posted:The last of the Utah counties holding out on issuing marriage licenses have given up and are now handing out licenses for gay couples. The state's obviously not done fighting, but the counties have thrown in the towel. Contempt of court threats tend to override people's "principled" stands.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
How many appeals have happened in Utah?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Appeals about what and by whom?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 16:07
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Appeals about what and by whom? For a stay on gay marriages by opponents
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Utah has appealed this ruling to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. They went to the 10th Circuit asking for a stay on the ruling until the original judge ruled on whether they were entitled to a stay pending appeal, which was rejected. They went to the original judge and asked him to stay his ruling pending the 10th Circuit appeals process, which was rejected. After losing that, they asked the 10th Circuit to grant a stay until the appeal was completed, which was rejected. They've now asked SCOTUS for the same stay, and I don't think there's been a response, but that's unlikely to be granted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Once Sotomayor rejects their request for a stay, if they're really, really determined they can direct the request to a different justice. That justice will refer the request to the full Court, who will then decide. They do this to ensure that once you get someone willing to pester everyone, it's resolved the second time by having all judges weigh in. edit: this generally only happens with crazy people though. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Dec 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 18:19
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Yup this is what I was looking for. I knew that it was more than once
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:edit: this generally only happens with crazy people though. Well, we are talking about Utah here 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:edit: this generally only happens with crazy people though. Wasn't this the favorite pastime of Orly Taitz until they started fining her for wasting everyone's time?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:Wasn't this the favorite pastime of Orly Taitz until they started fining her for wasting everyone's time? Yes, she's how I know about this perticular procedure. Everyone flipped out when she petitioned a second justice (one of the conservatives, though I forget which) and he referred it to the entire court, and everyone assumed that was a "this sounds reasonable let's depose a president" move instead of "lets make this crazy lady go away" procedure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
Went to the movies today and one of the previews was a Fathom Events feature called quote:NCM Fathom Events, Focus on the Family™ and Pine Creek Entertainment invite you to explore important questions about what is family in the one-night cinema event Irreplaceable . Broadcast to movie theaters nationwide on Tuesday, May 6 at 7:30pm (local time), join host Tim Sisarich (Executive Director of Focus on the Family™ New Zealand) as he meets with experts around the globe to seek answers to this fascinating question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BF2wEgIOSMQ Here is the trailer. Subtle at times and overt at other times, this documentary is looking at what "is a traditional family" and "traditional marriage" Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
The picture and summary you put up sound a lot like something Scientology would release.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
RZApublican posted:The picture and summary you put up sound a lot like something Scientology would release.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Considering the things Scientology has done, it wouldn't surprise me if it was a secret campaign by them to discredit Focus on the Family. Scientology donated heavily to Yes campaigns on Prop 8. I don't think this is an issue they're at odds with Focus on the Family on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 01:15
|
|
|
Lutha Mahtin posted:Scientology also donated heavily to Yes campaigns on Prop 8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White FlamingLiberal fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 01:16
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yes, she's how I know about this perticular procedure. Everyone flipped out when she petitioned a second justice (one of the conservatives, though I forget which) and he referred it to the entire court, and everyone assumed that was a "this sounds reasonable let's depose a president" move instead of "lets make this crazy lady go away" procedure. Wouldn't Sotomayor normally refer something like this to the whole court anyway? What does it take, four votes to hear the case? I suspect they would get that, or is Roberts trying to stay clear of the whole thing and let it play out in the lower courts and states until everyone realizes the momentum is unstoppable? On that note, I saw Fox News asking how the Republicans are going to run an anti-marriage-equality candidate in 2016, when that position is so far outside the mainstream of young and middle-aged voters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Wouldn't Sotomayor normally refer something like this to the whole court anyway? What does it take, four votes to hear the case? I suspect they would get that, or is Roberts trying to stay clear of the whole thing and let it play out in the lower courts and states until everyone realizes the momentum is unstoppable? On that note, I saw Fox News asking how the Republicans are going to run an anti-marriage-equality candidate in 2016, when that position is so far outside the mainstream of young and middle-aged voters. They're debating over a stay, not over taking the case. The case would still need to make it through the 10th Circuit before the Supremes weigh in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
^^^^ The stay should be interesting, one one end you have gay people that can show demonstrative harm if they can not get married, particularly after Windsor against the opposition that can only point to a ridiculous slippery slope argument after thousands of marriages that have already taken place in their state that would not be annulled by a stay. On the way home I listened to a commentator from National Review on NPR flat out say that now that marriage equality is gaining steam polygomy is on the table in 2014.You know since the Utah marriage ruling and the overturning of a completely unrelated and rediculious law preventing cohabitation by unmarried people. I'm used to this by the fringe crazies but come on, they aren't even trying anymore. Three Olives fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Pet marriage and small appliance civil unions will be the hot-button topics of the 2016 elections. Don't get too excited 3o, marriage to domiciles is probably at least a decade away. Petr fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
What about non-residential buildings?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 04:37
|
|
