• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS blog: DOMA Unconstitutional

Your Star said:
And if anything, the court is likely to get more liberal. If one conservative judge leaves a vacancy within the next 3 years, it will swing to 6-3.
Click to expand...

And I think this is more solid because I think Kennedy or one of the other even liberal Justices may be reluctant to strike down state bans without that extra Justice to support it. It is absolutely possible, just seems they are being reluctant to make sweeping rulings lately with the current divide of the Court.
 
disneydude said:
Yes...this is why the last election was so important. I thank God every day that Obama was re-elected to ensure that our Supreme Court does not fall into the hands of the activist Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas agenda.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the activist liberal wing of the Supreme Court? LOL

Dude, you're so transparent it hurts my eyes to read your posts.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Hehe, well, last time I checked the federal government legislates from the congress, not the Supreme Court. Good luck trying to get 535 legislators to agree on that. Right now as it stands the federal government does not have a position on gay marriage, or any marriage - as in my opinion, this ruling makes any federal marriage law moot when applied to the states, and anyone not employed by the federal government.


Tim-
Click to expand...

By striking down the sex/gender restriction in DOMA, the law goes back to what it originally was, and that is whatever the state considers a legal marriage for them, is a legal marriage for federal recognition. It is not in any sort of limbo.
 
Your Star said:
Basically, my thought process is that since they struck DOMA down on the basis of equality, it sets court precedence, and that all laws prohibiting SSM could be seen in the same light.
Click to expand...

They struck down DOMA on the basis of equal protection(not quite the same thing as equality) in light of states rights. While that will be a factor in cases going forward, and does seem to establish equal protection as covering SSM, there are a number of ways they could sidestep it. However, it does mean that in future rulings on bans of SSM, the state would have to show at the very least a rational basis for those laws, which is difficult at best.
 
Zyphlin said:
While his current notion is that, there's no indication how strongly he feels regarding that nor how he weighs his particular view on that in relation to the notion of the states rights to set its marriage laws. Leaning one way or another is one thing, but there's no "slam dunk" type of reading here where all signs point one way or another.
Click to expand...

Thats true. However, it is pretty clear that Kennedy is cementing his legacy. Its unlikely that he is going to do a complete 180 and his indication in this ruling that there is no legitimate state interest limiting marriage to "straights only" is a pretty clear indication that he not likely to flip on that.
 
roguenuke said:
By striking down the sex/gender restriction in DOMA, the law goes back to what it originally was, and that is whatever the state considers a legal marriage for them, is a legal marriage for federal recognition. It is not in any sort of limbo.
Click to expand...

But you are failing to recognize the clear indication that invites challenges to "straight only" discrimination. True, state limitations live another day, but you would have to be completely oblivious to not see the writing on the wall.
 
disneydude said:
You are correct. However, there is no need to have congressional legislation. There are 5 clear votes on the Supreme Court that there is no legitimate state interest in limiting marriage to "straights only". The days of marriage discrimination are numbered. States can try to continue to discriminate but there will be a ruling in the very near future striking down discrimination for once and all. The writing is clearly on the wall.
Click to expand...

Legitimacy and rationale are matters of opinion. Opinions sought by representatives, and then legislated for. Kennedy's opinion that there is no legitimate state interest is his own. All in all, a pretty good decision actually, because it gives back to the states that which was eroding fast, and that is their right to govern themselves without federal interference.


Tim-
 
CanadaJohn said:
I wouldn't make that jump - what the ruling says, as I understand it, is that the state has the right to define marriage and the federal government has no authority to nullify or alter that definition. The ruling does not say that one state's definition must be accepted by all states or that all states must sanction gay marriage because one or any state does.
Click to expand...

The bolded(again...why I do this mostly just with your posts I do not know...), I do not think the ruling says that. As I understand it, the ruling says that in this case the federal government does not have the authority to nullify the states definition because it does not serve a legitimate purpose.
 
Thank God this is over. Now we can get on to important NATIONAL issues. Things like insane debt, war, and federal government corruption.
 
disneydude said:
Yes...this is why the last election was so important. I thank God every day that Obama was re-elected to ensure that our Supreme Court does not fall into the hands of the activist Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas agenda.
Click to expand...

Roberts has been fairly middle of the road. Bush said he wasn't an activist judge, and it certainly looks like he isn't.

I kinda like Roberts. Smart guy, rules on the law and the merits rather than a partisan agenda.
 
Hicup said:
Legitimacy and rationale are matters of opinion. Opinions sought by representatives, and then legislated for. Kennedy's opinion that there is no legitimate state interest is his own. All in all, a pretty good decision actually, because it gives back to the states that which was eroding fast, and that is their right to govern themselves without federal interference.


Tim-
Click to expand...
Yes, but it is an opinion that is held by the other 4 Justices that sided with him on this opinion. Where are you going to get your fifth vote to uphold state discrimination for "straight only" marriages unless it is Kennedy? Any hope that the balance of the court will shift is unlikely. The only person likely to go is Ginsburg and she will not be replaced by a right-wing conservative like Scalia. So where is your 5th vote?
 
stonewall50 said:
Thank God this is over. Now we can get on to important NATIONAL issues. Things like insane debt, war, and federal government corruption.
Click to expand...

That'll have to wait until after the Zimmerman/Martin thing is over.
 
stonewall50 said:
Thank God this is over. Now we can get on to important NATIONAL issues. Things like insane debt, war, and federal government corruption.
Click to expand...

This is a court case and has exactly jack and **** to do with any of that, and likewise no effect on any of that, nor does it prevent the other branches who actually handle that stuff to do their job.
 
Your Star said:
It's rather interesting, it seems to me that this is leading up to a big case, similar to Prop 8, that will make SSM legal everywhere. It seems like the only reason we didn't get that today, is because of procedural reasons.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong on both counts. "Procedural reasons" i,e, due process is more likely the reason SSM supporters got what little they got today. supporters would be better off to stop trying to bypass the legislative process though the Courts with a Hail Mary and trying to force their political will on states through the courts and actually develop a running game state by state involving a better PR strategy than trying to equate themselves with oppressed blacks and use the legislative process to get whatever they can get whether it be separate civil unions or marriage. The "We want to have loving families too/we want people to stop beating us to a pulp when we walk down the street" angle will work better than the "Christians/conservatives are evil who must be beaten" strategy IMO.
 
disneydude said:
Yes...this is why the last election was so important. I thank God every day that Obama was re-elected to ensure that our Supreme Court does not fall into the hands of the activist Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas agenda.
Click to expand...

Can you name one of any of Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas who are set to resign in the next two years? It would require one of them to retire soon in order for Obama to be able to swing the court to the left and he'll need about a year to get any truly liberal justice through the Senate, particular after the Senate perhaps changes majority in 2014. It is far more likely that Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer will either retire or pass away than it is for any of the conservative four to do so - and Kennedy is likely to stay on, past Obama's term, because he likes being the swing vote and he's more conservative than liberal in the majority of his opinions.
 
This is such a hilarious decision

It's going to open up a Pandora's Box for all kinds of Frankenstein "Marriage" experiments that don't mean anything. But hey, people want their tax incentives so anything goes, including Polygamy and Group Marriage now. The United States has become an Oligarchy run by lawyers in black robes.
 
This was a giant trampling of states' rights. Liberals tend to use phrases like "equal rights" and "full faith and credit" to blast open doors that allow even one hyper-liberal state to essentially spit in the face of 49 others by saying that when it sets the rules, the other states must fall in line like dominoes.

I would consider this a victory if it was a giant step in the direction of "gays can STFU now", but I doubt that this is the end of anything. It's more likely the soapbox for even louder bitching - if that's possible.
 
Bronson said:
This is such a hilarious decision

It's going to open up a Pandora's Box for all kinds of Frankenstein "Marriage" experiments that don't mean anything. But hey, people want their tax incentives so anything goes, including Polygamy and Group Marriage now. The United States has become an Oligarchy run by lawyers in black robes.
Click to expand...

This is quite clearly the single biggest epitomization of a slippery slope fallacy I think has ever graced DP.
 
Redress said:
They struck down DOMA on the basis of equal protection(not quite the same thing as equality) in light of states rights. While that will be a factor in cases going forward, and does seem to establish equal protection as covering SSM, there are a number of ways they could sidestep it. However, it does mean that in future rulings on bans of SSM, the state would have to show at the very least a rational basis for those laws, which is difficult at best.
Click to expand...

Oh it could, and I'm sure those arguments will be in the dissent of people like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. But with today's rulings it makes the possibility of a broad sweeping ruling in a future case much more likely.

Especially since the way the court has ruled on gay rights issues over the past decade, and I don't think that Kennedy would rule against a case where gay rights is the focus.
 
Redress said:
The bolded(again...why I do this mostly just with your posts I do not know...), I do not think the ruling says that. As I understand it, the ruling says that in this case the federal government does not have the authority to nullify the states definition because it does not serve a legitimate purpose.
Click to expand...

Okay, but it must also recognize then that the state has primary interest in the area of legislation, not the federal government - that seems logical to me, but then not all court decisions are so logical - as a result, wouldn't it then stand to reason that if a state has primary interest, the interests of one state would not be able to nullify or abrogate another state's interests?
 
CanadaJohn said:
Can you name one of any of Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas who are set to resign in the next two years? It would require one of them to retire soon in order for Obama to be able to swing the court to the left and he'll need about a year to get any truly liberal justice through the Senate, particular after the Senate perhaps changes majority in 2014. It is far more likely that Justice Ginsburg or Justice Breyer will either retire or pass away than it is for any of the conservative four to do so - and Kennedy is likely to stay on, past Obama's term, because he likes being the swing vote and he's more conservative than liberal in the majority of his opinions.
Click to expand...

No. But you need 5 votes. Ginsburg will be replaced with a moderate to liberal, same with Breyer and at least one is likely to go within the next 2 years. Where are you going to get your 5th vote to secure discrimination?
 
rocket88 said:
Roberts has been fairly middle of the road. Bush said he wasn't an activist judge, and it certainly looks like he isn't.

I kinda like Roberts. Smart guy, rules on the law and the merits rather than a partisan agenda.
Click to expand...

Seems that way, doesn't it - until you watched him twist himself into a jumbo pretzel in order to make a highly political decision in ruling Obamacare constitutional.
 
Gipper said:
This was a giant trampling of states' rights.
Click to expand...

How does nullifying a federal law banning gay marriage trample on state's rights?

From what i can tell from both rulings, State's will not be compelled to give out marriage licenses to SS couples. Even if the full faith and credit clause forces state's to recognize SSM's from other states, they'll still have the ability to not issue marriage certificates to SS couples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom