|
Captain Mog posted:How? Romer v Evans, Lawrence v Texas, Christian Legal Society v Martinez, United States v Windsor... that sounds like a lot of exceptions to me. I mean yeah I guess he ruled in favor of the boy scouts that one time but that's a drop in the puddle compared to quashing sodomy laws and aiding the ability of LGBT people to sue for discrimination. He was saying that Kennedy has been good on gay rights, but lovely on everything else. (I'm not sure I 100% agree on that, but it's not a terrible rule of thumb.)
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:When the Supreme Court rules, or denies cert. I've been curious about the odds of them denying cert. If all of the circuit courts are in agreement doesn't SCOTUS usually deny cert?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
It seems likely (though not certain) that the sixth circuit is going to rule against marriage equality. In that case, I don't see how they deny cert.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:It seems likely (though not certain) that the sixth circuit is going to rule against marriage equality. In that case, I don't see how they deny cert. Are they still talking about "democracy guys  "?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Are they still talking about "democracy guys They haven't said any more since then that I've heard. Just "I'm sure you all don't mind going around convincing everyone you deserve fundamental rights".
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:I've been curious about the odds of them denying cert. If all of the circuit courts are in agreement doesn't SCOTUS usually deny cert? Yes. But this is a high-profile enough issue I don't think the usual standards apply: without a circuit split they will take a case if they want to rule on the issue and if they don't, they won't. With a circuit split though there's no way they can avoid ruling given the importance of this issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:It seems likely (though not certain) that the sixth circuit is going to rule against marriage equality. In that case, I don't see how they deny cert. Really? Based on what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Deuce posted:Really? Based on what? The swing vote judge seemed somewhat deferential to precedent (Baker) and the democratic/legislative process during oral arguments. Also,  Bush appointees
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Also, Any time someone seriously spazzes out just because of this, remind them that this man:  is one of the loving awesomest judges in the country. And he is a Bush appointee.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:How? Romer v Evans, Lawrence v Texas, Christian Legal Society v Martinez, United States v Windsor... that sounds like a lot of exceptions to me. I mean yeah I guess he ruled in favor of the boy scouts that one time but that's a drop in the puddle compared to quashing sodomy laws and aiding the ability of LGBT people to sue for discrimination. hangedman1984 posted:Yeah, Kennedy has always been pretty lovely with the one major exception of gay rights. reading comprehension not where it should be perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:reading comprehension not where it should be perhaps? Oh, I apologize. I misread that as "he's been lovely on gay rights with one major exception" for some odd reason. That's what I get for early morning posting I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Part of the reason people are concerned is that the 'swing' judge seemed to be arguing that the Baker case SCOTUS denied cert on in the 1970s precluded him from siding with the plaintiffs. Another judge in Tennessee used the same case to rule against marriage equality, but so far that case has been largely forgotten by the other judges.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Part of the reason people are concerned is that the 'swing' judge seemed to be arguing that the Baker case SCOTUS denied cert on in the 1970s precluded him from siding with the plaintiffs. Another judge in Tennessee used the same case to rule against marriage equality, but so far that case has been largely forgotten by the other judges. Or addressed and dismissed, e.g. the 10th Circuit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:Oh, I apologize. I misread that as "he's been lovely on gay rights with one major exception" for some odd reason. That's what I get for early morning posting I guess. is cool, happens to the best of us
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Any time someone seriously spazzes out just because of this, remind them that this man: Also, Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, as was Judge Walker (the judge who overturned Prop 8). Marriage equality is one of the few "hot-button" issues that has genuine bipartisan support. Even high-profile Republicans (Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Rick Scott) who are against it will go out of their way to change the subject when it's brought up ("Well, economy and jobs and GOVERNMENT BAD") because they know being against equality is a losing issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
It's already been said often, but the 6th Circuit ruling for the ban would actually be good for us, because it'd make it almost a guarantee that the Supreme Court settles the issue next year.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Yes. But this is a high-profile enough issue I don't think the usual standards apply: without a circuit split they will take a case if they want to rule on the issue and if they don't, they won't. Also, doesn't the Supreme Court have a policy that the United States is entitled to Supreme Court review when one of its statutes is struck down? I'm not sure how that applies to state law though. In other news, I'm not sure if it's been posted somewhere else, but I was filing an amended tax return when I came across the following bit in the 1040X instructions: IRS posted:Same-sex spouses. You may amend a return filed before September 16, 2013, to change your filing status to married filing separately or married filing jointly. But you are not required to change your filing status on a prior return, even if you amend that return for another reason. In either case, your amended return must be consistent with the filing status you choose. You must file the amended return before the expiration of the period of limitations That is, if you were Same-sex married in a state that permitted it, the IRS will let you retroactively revise your pre-Windsor returns as if DOMA had never existed as far back as the statute of limitations allows (which I think is the later of 3 years from the original filing deadline or 2 years from the date taxes were actually paid).
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Yeah they changed that rule recently to allow same-sex couples to file like that
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:Also, doesn't the Supreme Court have a policy that the United States is entitled to Supreme Court review when one of its statutes is struck down? I'm not sure how that applies to state law though. Not exactly - it's a lot more likely that a case in which a statute is struck down gets reviewed, but it isn't mandatory or anything. It doesn't apply to state laws at all, also.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
There seems to be a bit of "will they won't they" talk about the Supreme Court granting Cert for any sort of case - if they deny cert, it makes all the currently stayed rulings to allow gay marriage... but is there a downside? Other than the fact that, in some isolated cases, it may be still banned? (Though that would likely change quickly)? I know the "best" choice would be grant cert, and have a lovely 9-0 ruling saying gay marriage is a right, but in the case that a 5-4 vote either way could theoretically come down to a nailbiter, is denying cert the best sure-fire way? Or is that basically the same thing as a punt, and that a proper case would show up next year anyway?
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
If they deny cert it's going to take longer for the entire country to get marriage equality I believe. Then everything would be done state by state.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
SgtScruffy posted:... I submit that the best best result would be an 8-1 decision in which Justice Scalia spontaneously combusts during his dissent from the bench, but somehow I doubt either of us will get so lucky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
SatansOnion posted:I submit that the best best result would be an 8-1 decision in which Justice Scalia spontaneously combusts during his dissent from the bench, but somehow I doubt either of us will get so lucky. Better yet: in the middle of a lawyer quoting Scalia as precedent
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:If they deny cert it's going to take longer for the entire country to get marriage equality I believe. Then everything would be done state by state. Yes, although that seems to be happening fairly quickly these days. Windsor's precedent has been pushing a lot of dominoes over.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Deuce posted:Yes, although that seems to be happening fairly quickly these days. Windsor's precedent has been pushing a lot of dominoes over. but you'll still have states like Mississippi and Georgia that simply will not do it until they are forced too
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 04:23
|
|
|
It's probably more procedure than something I should be reading things into, but with the Supreme Court granting a stay for (by my count) two federal cases so far, pending appeal to themselves, it seems odd they would do that, if they were inclined to deny cert. It suggests to me, that they have more or less decided that they'll take at least one of the cases bubbling upwards (though not necessarily those they stayed). Kind of them saying "At least one of these is going to worth our time. We'll see which once they come across our desk. Meanwhile wait for us to speak". This is likely just me overanalyzing things, but is that a thing they would do?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 08:33
|
|
|
GhostBoy posted:It's probably more procedure than something I should be reading things into, but with the Supreme Court granting a stay for (by my count) two federal cases so far, pending appeal to themselves, it seems odd they would do that, if they were inclined to deny cert. It suggests to me, that they have more or less decided that they'll take at least one of the cases bubbling upwards (though not necessarily those they stayed). Kind of them saying "At least one of these is going to worth our time. We'll see which once they come across our desk. Meanwhile wait for us to speak". I have no doubt that the SCOTUS will grant cert. It only takes four justices to do so, so even in the godawful situation of the 5-4 decision, cert is still granted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
Freedom to Marry has audio of the oral arguments from the 7th Circuit cases today (Indiana and Wisconsin). http://www.freedomtomarry.org/blog/entry/today-7th-circuit-hears-oral-arguments-in-wisconsin-indiana-marriage-cases The quotes from the judges are pretty awesome, too. Seems like we'll have another win here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865609601/Court-allows-Utah-more-time-to-file-gay-marriage-recognition-appeal.html 10th circuit granted Utah's request for an additional 30 days to file their appeal. Just delaying the inevitable, but at least it should silence a bit of the whining. "We would've been able to protect traditional marriage if we'd only had 30 MORE DAYS to refine our brief!!!!" There's a golden comment on that article: quote:After listening to the oral arguments in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals over Wisconsin and Indian anti-Gay Marriage laws, I'm convinced the State of Utah is going to need more time to prepare their appeal. A lot more time. A whole lot more time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
katium posted:Freedom to Marry has audio of the oral arguments from the 7th Circuit cases today (Indiana and Wisconsin). Wow, you weren't kidding. All three judges are really tearing the anti-SSM arguments apart... particularly Reagan-appointed Judge Posner. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
The Macaroni posted:Freedom to Marry has audio of the oral arguments from the 7th Circuit cases today (Indiana and Wisconsin). Thank you for linking that. Totally made my day, which was turning right lovely. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
The FL Supreme Court has agreed to hear a gay marriage case that would potentially add another state to the list of marriage equality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The FL Supreme Court has agreed to hear a gay marriage case that would potentially add another state to the list of marriage equality. But... Florida is already on that list. Stayed pending appeal, of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
This would still legalize gay marriage statewide.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Ballz posted:But... Florida is already on that list. Stayed pending appeal, of course. States with stays is big enough that that constitutes its own list. This would basically negate that stay if the state Supreme Court were to overturn the ban and put Florida on the list that matters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Yeah and I doubt the supreme court of Florida would stay their own decision on Florida law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Wow, you weren't kidding. All three judges are really tearing the anti-SSM arguments apart... particularly Reagan-appointed Judge Posner. I find it hilarious that someone actually presented an argument that straight people need marriage rights because they just can't resist loving each other and need some sort of financial carrot dangling in front of their horny faces to pull them out of their hormone-fuelled fuckhaze long enough to have them agree to shoulder their responsibilities, while homosexuals, as responsible paragons of virtue and altruism need no reward for their selfless sacrifice of agreeing to raise those heterosexual nymphomaniacs' unwanted crotchspawn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
I now really want to see the word "fuckhaze" appear in a legal decision by a federal judge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Federal appeals court unsurprisingly dismissed NOM's efforts to appeal Oregon's overturn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 16:49 |
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:Federal appeals court unsurprisingly dismissed NOM's efforts to appeal Oregon's overturn. That's a cherry topper on my awesome day 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 01:45
|
|
