"If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
Break, By Three days grace
Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016
Not so fast, curb your enthusiasm please.
Wisconsin Attorney General to Seek Emergency Court Order to Stop Gay Marriages - ABC News
About Wisconsin's attorney general;
This sounds all too familiar with republicans wasting a court's time and taxpayer money;John Byron "J.B." Van Hollen (born February 19, 1966) is the Attorney General of the State of Wisconsin. A Republican, he was elected to the office in November 2006 and took office on January 3, 2007
You would think a legal scholar would know this before filing a frivolous lawsuit.In September 2008, Van Hollen sued the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the state elections agency, to force it check voter registrations for accuracy. Van Hollen said that the motivation for the lawsuit was that potentially illegal votes could sway the election. On October 23, 2008, a Dane County circuit judge dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Van Hollen did not have standing to bring the lawsuit, because only the Attorney General of the United States can enforce federal law.
And, filing an emergency appeal or legal brief to halt gay marriage in the state is his last act;
On October 7, 2013, Van Hollen announced he will not seek reelection in 2014 for a third term as attorney general.
Judge overturns Wisconsin's same-sex marriage ban - TODAY'S TMJ4IT IS ORDERED that
1. The motion to dismiss filed by defendants Scott Walker, J.B. Van Hollen and
Oskar Anderson, dkt. #66, is DENIED.
2. The motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs Virginia Wolf, Carol
Schumacher, Kami Young, Karina Willes, Roy Badger, Garth Wangemann, Charvonne
Kemp, Marie Carlson, Judith Trampf, Katharina Heyning, Salud Garcia, Pamela Kleiss,
William Hurtubise, Leslie Palmer, Johannes Wallmann and Keith Borden, dkt. #70 is
3. It is DECLARED that art. XIII, § 13 of the Wisconsin Constitution violates
plaintiffs’ fundamental right to marry and their right to equal protection of laws under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any Wisconsin statutory
provisions, including those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 765, that limit marriages to a
“husband” and a “wife,” are unconstitutional as applied to same-sex couples.
4. Plaintiffs may have until June 16, 2014, to submit a proposed injunction that
complies with the requirement in Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(1)(C) to “describe in reasonable
detail . . . the act or acts restrained or required.” In particular, plaintiffs should identify what
they want each named defendant to do or be enjoined from doing. Defendants may have one
week from the date plaintiffs file their proposed injunction to file an opposition. If
defendants file an opposition, plaintiffs may have one week from that date to file a reply in
support of their proposed injunction.
5. I will address defendants’ pending motion to stay the injunction after the parties
wish, they may have until June 16, 2014, to supplement their materials related to that
motion in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Geiger v. Kitzhaber not to grant a stay
in that case.
Entered this 6th day of June, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
BARBARA B. CRABB
I did ask that question, and it does merit this interpretation. You blather about the means, but you haven't actually provided any rebuttal to the actual legal argument being made. Same-sex marriage bans definitely do not pass the test of intermediate constitutional scrutiny.You are asking the wrong question, especially since I have no problem with it being legal as this is about the means rather than the end result. How many ways could the Supreme Court "reinterpret" the constitution in an unprecedented fashion that would affect your life? If you endorse these decisions because they favor your political views, without considering whether a faithful application of the constitution truly merits the reinterpretation, then you should consider whether there are any ways the Supreme Court could act against your political views using the same sort of legal gymnastics.
One of you will end up here next!
For me, the issue has always been getting government out of the marriage business, not more entrenched in it. On that basis, wake me when efforts start taking place to restrict government's ability to discriminate based on marital status so that all individuals, married or not, can expect the same tax and benefit treatment from their government.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
The thing is, government is not going to get out of the marriage business any time soon. It just is a nonstarter. It is important symbolically for couples, it is a huge benefit to society in promoting stability, it is simply a convenient way to bundle a bunch of legal stuff together in one easy package.
As I said, it comes down to legal gymnastics. People with fancy law degrees who ignore the intention of the Constitution, even ignore the intention of previous court rulings, and instead just try to find some plausible-sounding argument for why x policy is good or bad will have no trouble coming up with some line that will pass muster. Certainly, partisans who care naught for the law or rights except when it suits them will be more than pleased with any decision that favors their political perspective.I did ask that question, and it does merit this interpretation. You blather about the means, but you haven't actually provided any rebuttal to the actual legal argument being made. Same-sex marriage bans definitely do not pass the test of intermediate constitutional scrutiny.
I could argue that the invocation of "intermediate scrutiny" on the basis of "gender discrimination" is completely unfounded and a perversion even of the original intent of the court rulings, or that even if one accepted the bizarre assertion that it still easily meets the standard. The problem is that when judges make political decisions, this effectively ends the discussion as the only way to undo their decision is to get another judge to overrule them and then act like that judge is more smarter than the other judges. It seems unlikely to happen in this case. When this gets up to the Supreme Court then the current partisan balance of power all but assures these decisions will be affirmed.
Unfortunately, all one has to do to get an idea of how these decisions will play out is to look at their political affiliations. That is not how it should be and diminishes the credibility of their rulings.
"For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
- Khalil Gibran