12
   

Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional!

 
 
Reply Thu 31 May, 2012 11:01 am
Great news today!

Quote:
Court: Heart Of Gay Marriage Law Unconstitutional
by The Associated Press
BOSTON May 31, 2012, 11:51 am ET

BOSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court Thursday declared that the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutionally denies federal benefits to married gay couples, a groundbreaking ruling all but certain to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its unanimous decision, the three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman deprives gay couples of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=154057639

I wonder how long it will take to get the case down to the USSC.... Should we expect that with this particular edition of the Supreme Court that the case to uphold the Unconstitutional ruling will fail via the typical party lines of the 5 conservative (and very much so ACTIVIST) judges vs 4 moderate SC judges? Or is this case far more complicated?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 12 • Views: 4,032 • Replies: 47

 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 May, 2012 03:52 pm
@tsarstepan,
Quote:
I wonder how long it will take to get the case down to the USSC.... Should we expect that with this particular edition of the Supreme Court that the case to uphold the Unconstitutional ruling will fail via the typical party lines of the 5 conservative (and very much so ACTIVIST) judges vs 4 moderate SC judges? Or is this case far more complicated?

Since the ruling in Mass. was made with 2 of the 3 having been appointed by Republicans (Boudin by George H.W. Bush, Torruella by Reagan), I'd like to believe the 9 justices of the Supreme Court would equally follow the law.

Further, when looking back at the signing of DoMA, it is wise to note that a Democrat was the President that signed it that July day in 1996. Since a Democrat put this in place, who is to say the allegedly moderate justices wouldn't see fit to keep it there, while the more conservative ones addressed the actual law and realized it was not constitutional?
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  5  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2012 03:06 pm
@tsarstepan,
I know today is a momentous day for DOMA one step closer to being dismantled!

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/18/1040901/breaking-federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-doma-in-opinion-by-republican-appointed-judge/

Quote:
BREAKING: Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DOMA In Opinion By Republican-Appointed Judge
tsarstepan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 07:27 pm
@jcboy,
Thanks for the update JC. Smile
Brandon9000
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 07:42 pm
The old model was that one should persuade people to vote for referenda one agreed with or for congressmen who would pass laws in line with one's beliefs. That model no longer holds. Now, now any law, regardless of how large a majority it receives in a referendum or in a congressional vote will simply be overturned in court if the liberals don't like it. If these laws were overturned on the basis of actual written statements in the Constitution, that would be one thing, but they are invariably overturned by tortured 10 step arguments designed to pretend the Constitution forbids or mandates things it never mentions at all. It is clear that there is an unwritten agreement among liberals that liberal judges will write any words necessary to justify striking down laws that they simply don't personally agree with. Conservatives can stop trying to get concensuses for laws that they favor. It no longer matters. For all intents and purposes, conservatives no longer have a meaningful right to vote, at least for the big issues. If I am no longer able to influence the laws of my country by the democratic process, I am unsure why I should feel compelled to abide by them.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 07:57 pm
@Brandon9000,
So . . . hehehehehe . . . so you're claiming . . . hehehehehehe . . . you're claiming that . . . hehehehehe . . . that federal courts . . . hehehehehehe . . . courts largely appointed by the younger Bush . . . heheheheheh . . . and a Supreme Court . . . hehehehehehehe . . . largely appointed by his Pappy . . . hahahahahahahahahaha . . . are liberal?

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Whoooooo . . .

Stop it, Brandon, you're killin' me here.
Brandon9000
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 08:07 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

So . . . hehehehehe . . . so you're claiming . . . hehehehehehe . . . you're claiming that . . . hehehehehe . . . that federal courts . . . hehehehehehe . . . courts largely appointed by the younger Bush . . . heheheheheh . . . and a Supreme Court . . . hehehehehehehe . . . largely appointed by his Pappy . . . hahahahahahahahahaha . . . are liberal?

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

Whoooooo . . .

Stop it, Brandon, you're killin' me here.

A trenchant argument which gives me great pause to reconsider.
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 08:10 pm
@tsarstepan,
Woot!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 08:15 pm
@Brandon9000,
Yeah, you might do that. Five Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Reagan, the elder Bush and the younger Bush. For eight of the last eleven years, vacancies on the Federal bench were filled by a Republican President. As the court which made this ruling had two of three justices appointed by Republicans, this is whiny bullshit to characterize the courts as bastions of liberal sentiment.
MMarciano
 
  4  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 08:23 pm
@Brandon9000,
This asshole is your typical conservative dinosaur. One foot in the grave, give him a shove.
Brandon9000
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 08:26 pm
@Setanta,
Bush senior didn't appoint anyone to the courts in Manhattan and Boston where these rulings occurred. Furthermore, four of the SC justices were appointed by Democrats, and Anthony Kenned has sided with the liberals on a number of issues, despite his long ago appointment by Reagan. The fact that the SC is about half and half is fortunately exerting some control on fanciful rulings by liberal courts at a lower level. There have been repeated rulings striking down democratically passed laws on gay marriage and immigration, rulings which refer to sections of the Constitution that aren't there. Furthermore, if the SC weren't about half and half, the 2nd Amendment would probably be in great trouble based on judicial legislation at a lower level.
Brandon9000
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 08:26 pm
@MMarciano,
MMarciano wrote:

This asshole is your typical conservative dinosaur. One foot in the grave, give him a shove.

Why is it you liberals can never marshall actual arguments to support your positions? Name calling is certainly the lowest form of debate.
MMarciano
 
  4  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 08:28 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

MMarciano wrote:

This asshole is your typical conservative dinosaur. One foot in the grave, give him a shove.

Why is it you liberals can never marshall actual arguments to support your positions? Name calling is certainly the lowest form of debate.


So what is your actually debate you conservative piece of ****?
Brandon9000
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 08:29 pm
@MMarciano,
MMarciano wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

MMarciano wrote:

This asshole is your typical conservative dinosaur. One foot in the grave, give him a shove.

Why is it you liberals can never marshall actual arguments to support your positions? Name calling is certainly the lowest form of debate.


So what is your actually debate you conservative piece of ****?

When you can control yourself, I may speak to you.
MMarciano
 
  4  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 08:31 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

MMarciano wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

MMarciano wrote:

This asshole is your typical conservative dinosaur. One foot in the grave, give him a shove.

Why is it you liberals can never marshall actual arguments to support your positions? Name calling is certainly the lowest form of debate.


So what is your actually debate you conservative piece of ****?

When you can control yourself, I may speak to you.

You conservative assholes can’t come up with one piece of intelligent debate against the subject so spare yourself the trouble and crawl back under the rock from which you came.
Brandon9000
 
  -3  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 08:32 pm
@MMarciano,
MMarciano wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

MMarciano wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

MMarciano wrote:

This asshole is your typical conservative dinosaur. One foot in the grave, give him a shove.

Why is it you liberals can never marshall actual arguments to support your positions? Name calling is certainly the lowest form of debate.


So what is your actually debate you conservative piece of ****?

When you can control yourself, I may speak to you.

You conservative assholes can’t come up with one piece of intelligent debate against the subject so spare yourself the trouble and crawl back under the rock from which you came.

Thank you for the very intelligent analysis and logic on this issue.
MMarciano
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 08:33 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

MMarciano wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

MMarciano wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

MMarciano wrote:

This asshole is your typical conservative dinosaur. One foot in the grave, give him a shove.

Why is it you liberals can never marshall actual arguments to support your positions? Name calling is certainly the lowest form of debate.


So what is your actually debate you conservative piece of ****?

When you can control yourself, I may speak to you.

You conservative assholes can’t come up with one piece of intelligent debate against the subject so spare yourself the trouble and crawl back under the rock from which you came.

Just the intelligent analysis and logic I would expect from you.


Still waiting, go ahead, I have time.
Rockhead
 
  3  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 08:34 pm
@Brandon9000,
enough with the ******* quote boxes...

brandon, why would you deny equal rights to gay folks?

did you feel the same about black folks?
Brandon9000
 
  -4  
Reply Fri 19 Oct, 2012 08:34 pm
@MMarciano,
MMarciano wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

MMarciano wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

MMarciano wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

MMarciano wrote:

This asshole is your typical conservative dinosaur. One foot in the grave, give him a shove.

Why is it you liberals can never marshall actual arguments to support your positions? Name calling is certainly the lowest form of debate.


So what is your actually debate you conservative piece of ****?

When you can control yourself, I may speak to you.

You conservative assholes can’t come up with one piece of intelligent debate against the subject so spare yourself the trouble and crawl back under the rock from which you came.

Just the intelligent analysis and logic I would expect from you.


Still waiting, go ahead, I have time.


I've given my arguments very clearly in two posts above. You need only read them.
Below viewing threshold (view)
 

Related Topics

Obama Administration Squares off with DOMA - Discussion by Diest TKO
DOMA ruling - Discussion by Buffalo
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional!
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/19/2019 at 01:30:42