How are they going to square that with the already established legal precedents?
Prop 8 Oral Arguments and Predictions
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
How are they going to square that with the already established legal precedents?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And not once have they ruled that something that is not marriage can be called marriage in order to make it a fundamental right. Yes, we all have the same fundamental right to marry, but gay people are not being denied this right, they seek an additional right to call something else marriage. My argument has always been, if the Constitution allows this kind of deviation, it must allow the same for all. In other words, if homosexuals can call something marriage which isn't marriage, then so can pedophiles, necrophiliacs, etc.
I hope this ruling will take that into consideration and clarify in it's finding.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LOL... Jarod, you ramble on consistently about things you know nothing about... do you comprehend how ironic the above is?
You say this was about a technical legal argument, yet it was so incoherent that Sotomayer and Roberts (left and right) didn't understand what he was trying to say?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
That said Jarod, you are correct, I am not a lawyer... so please explain the techinical legal argument being made for us non lawyers
They understood, they simply wanted it on record and wanted it hashed out. You will see in the ruling they understood. I actually listened to the argument.
The President has a duty to uphold the laws of the United States. He also has a duty to uphold the Constitution. The President has conflicting duties when he belives a LAW is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
So DOMA was taken to Court to challange its Constitutionality, The Plaintiff v. The United States. The Justice Department origionally defended DOMA. The Plaintiff won at the appellate (middle) level. The U.S. Government then took an appeal but switched sides and is now seeking to uphold the lower court ruling along with the Plaintiff, but because they "won" the Government is appealing a case they already won. In a sense, the Obama Administration is defending the laws of the United States while also defending the Constitution by enforcing DOMA while also trying to defeat it on Constitutional grounds. The President could simply refuse to enforce DOMA, but he would not be Defending the LAWS of the Unites States, he also would not be advancing the issue and pressing the S. Ct. defenativly rule on the Constitutionality of DOMA.
They want the S. Ct. to decide this issue now instead of waiting for it to come up again. Usually you cannot appeal an issue that has already been won, but the S. Ct. will allow it in some circumstances, such as when the issue is likely to come up again.
Because the Government is enforcing the law, while also saying its Constitutional (the duty of the President) there is standing to keep the case going.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
congrats... you proved you could ramble on like any lawyer. The above does not address the point of the article I posted. Why do they state they are not trying to get it done throughout the country?
Nice rant, but none of it has anything to do with defining marriage....marriage is still what it has always been, ie, between a man and women.....
The FUNDAMENTAL definition of marriage NEVER said it included a union between a man and man or a women and a women....
Interesting.....now for a question...
Is it an impeachable offense for the POTUS to refuse to enforce the legislated laws of the US....isn't that the sworn duty of the President ? Does he have
the ability to pick an choose what laws he will enforce which he will not ?
Verrili's argument was about Hollingsworth v Perry (California Prop 8 case) not US v Windsor (DOMA case). The administration appealed the DOMA case to create standing and get it heard before the US S. Ct. Hollingsworth (a proponent of prop 8) appealed in that case as Jerry Brown who was Attorney General and Arnold declined to defend the law. The US is not needed for standing in the Prop 8 case. They seem to be arguing to limit the ruling to California as the 9th circ uit did.
http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=158901
http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=158901
Great and so your FUNDAMENTAL definition will not be changed and you ditzy can continue to pretend it matters. The legal definition will be.
It ain't MY definition, its THE definition....and whether its changed or not isn't up to me.
It's your definition. It exists in an abstract form in your mind. In the real world, the definition of marriage has changed and will again.
wrong marriage is covered in the constitution!
Oops, Sorry I misunderstood your post.
I looked into it, I dont understand the Administrations argument.... I dont know what they were trying to accomplish on that...
but to equate it to voting "Presen"t is simply silly considering that if they did not want that case in front of the S. Ct. it would not be there.
Well at least you won't be lonely in hell
Nope, it used to be between a Man and as many women as he wanted.
It was also at one time only between a man and a woman of the same race.
It used to be until death.
It changes and will continue to change, thats how societies and cultures work.
I think it is a mental disability, brought on by something enormous, that happened to them as children!
I dont believe it would be impeachable, and to some extent all presidents do it, they allocate resources as they see fit. For example, President Bush gutted the Anti-trust devision of the Justice Department and severly cut almost all funding for that devision. Infact they did not file any anti-trust lawsuits.
So yes, to some extent, the President could say, "well, the lower Court ruled DOMA Unconstitutional and thus I have enough cover to stop enforcing it", but that would have left the door for future Republican Presidents to start enforcement again, and no lasting change would have been accomplished.