Appellate court rules on Prop 8

[Ms Tree]

9th Circut court has rules that Prop 8 is a violation of the COTUS specifically the 14th amendment.

The case will be appealed to the SCOTUS.

 

[tech2101]

9th Circut court has rules that Prop 8 is a violation of the COTUS specifically the 14th amendment.

The case will be appealed to the SCOTUS.

That was not unexpected.

 

[xUT]

It should have gone to the SCOTUS first.
Let's finish it one way or another.
B) xUT

 

[Knotbuyinit]

That was not unexpected.

When I heard the news this afternoon I too expected Ms Tree to start a thread.

 

[delldude]

9th Circut court has rules that Prop 8 is a violation of the COTUS specifically the 14th amendment.

The case will be appealed to the SCOTUS.

SCROTUS?

 

[Ms Tree]

It should have gone to the SCOTUS first.
Let's finish it one way or another.
B) xUT

Lower courts come before the SCOTUS.

I just read an article on NPR that suggested that the SCOTUS will refuse the case. That will mean Prop 8 is dead and the SCOTUS will wait for a better case. The article suggested that the decision was framed is such a way that is was specific to CA. The SCOTUS wants a case That is broader in scope.

I think either way this goes, equal rights to marriage will stay in CA.

 

[Ms Tree]

That was not unexpected.

Agreed. There is nothing the COTUS to support a restriction on access to marriage. It is an equal rights issue and when it eventually makes its way to tbe SCOTUS they will hand down the same decision.

 

[delldude]

Agreed. There is nothing the COTUS to support a restriction on access to marriage. It is an equal rights issue and when it eventually makes its way to tbe SCOTUS they will hand down the same decision.

I wouldn't count my chickens in this climate.

There is nothing to support it the other way either...so whats your point?

President Gingrich will have the SCROTUS justices and all the other gays gathered up and sent off to 'greener ' pastures.....LOL

 

[delldude]

Lower courts come before the SCOTUS.

So you saying the lower courts cum first?

That's an interesting play on words. :unsure:

 

[eolesen]

It's just so ironic that we have a change to a constitution that was approved by the people being declared unconstitutional by a bunch of political appointees. Sounds like the TWU in action...

 

[delldude]

It's just so ironic that we have a change to a constitution that was approved by the people being declared unconstitutional by a bunch of political appointees. Sounds like the TWU in action...

Where's Newt when you need him?

 

[Veritas]

9th Circut court has rules that Prop 8 is a violation of the COTUS specifically the 14th amendment.

The case will be appealed to the SCOTUS.

The court did not hold that Prop 8 violated the 14th Amendment because it denied gays the right to mary. It was a violation of the 14th Amendment to take away an existing right:

“By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the people of California violated the Equal Protection Clause. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground.”​

 

[Ms Tree]

It's just so ironic that we have a change to a constitution that was approved by the people being declared unconstitutional by a bunch of political appointees. Sounds like the TWU in action...

So tomorrow the people of CA are going to propose a proposition that will out law Christianity. You are OK with that if it passes since it will have been voted on by the people right? I would be willing to bet you would appeal that to the SCOTUS as well.

You really should stick with the airline stuff. You have a very poor understanding of US law. State laws cannot violate the COTUS. Prop 8 does just that. Prop 8 violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. As out lined in the decision, there was not compelling interest to allow the government to remove a right already given.

I know that I have no interest in having my rights voted on by the public. Do you? What rights would you be willing to have people vote on?

 

[eolesen]

Don't worry. I suspect it's just a matter of time before the issue comes back in a form that doesn't allow the 14th to be distorted, as many believe it has been in this case.

 

[Ms Tree]

Don't worry. I suspect it's just a matter of time before the issue comes back in a form that doesn't allow the 14th to be distorted, as many believe it has been in this case.

And how would that happen? If a law precludes a segment of society from entering in to a contract that others can, that violates the 14th. Given that the 14th has been used to strike down nearly everyone of these laws which went to the courts, do you not think that the people bent on depriving peoples equal rights would have already framed a law to by pass that argument?