Doma Struck Down

[MrRealDeal]

As far as Courts go .... one thing people seem to forget about is that a decision on gay marriage is also a re trying of Row vs Wade and the decision might not go as people think and rather than getting gay marriage in 50 states you might make banning abortion legal in 50 states. I doubt that will happen but i'm trying to show you how seemingly irelevant things can happen in these cases. They can be carefull not not allow that or do it on purpose, up to them.

The overall point im trying to make to you Jing is that the type of case is really quite irelevant when it comes to the court wanting to make far reaching decisions. The Lawyers you refered to in another post only would want to make it sound like their case is the "best" because they want to be the ones to go down in history on the Docket not because it makes any difference at all which case is used in the end.

Trust me within 1.5 years this issue will be settled pretty much the way you think it should be and pretty much the way people wanting to overturn row v wade don't want it to be.

Should I make a new topic ? we are so far away from the first one I forgot what it was !

[Jingthing]

Again, you've lost me. You're not psychic. But your opinion, such as it is and the part I can decipher, is interesting.

Of course if Romney is elected and he gets some picks, yes, Roe v Wade could potentially be overturned. I don't think EITHER will happen but I'm also not psychic.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

Well as a side note I am psychic ! .... I My most interesting and accurate vision was of the earthquake in china several years back ..... when I go to temples and the fortune teller want to tell my fortune I say no and more than once they have looked at the person i'm with and said ...thats because he can do it to.

But as far as the interesting parts go ... I keep stating that the Court has already said it will decide this overall issue so it's not being psycic it's that they have stated this , the how and why or who will try it they haven't mentioned but the reason I say after the election is not based on my psychic abilitys but on what they have said.

The Court has a somewhat new pattern of trying to kill 2 birds with one stone as it were, rather than deciding on each specfic issue and it's singularitys. Which is why I believe they will do their best to put most all related issues to rest with one decision. It really takes an unusual case to make it state specific even if the decision is over a matter pertaining to one state , because the law they lay down becomes case law for the entire country, unless it's irelevant such as something you might only find in one state, such as a Kodiak bear for example.

It really is beyond the imagination that they will try ANY case having to do with any aspect of same sex marriage and not make it clear as to weather or not they find it to be constitutional or unconstitutional to deny marriage to same sex couples. It would really be quite astonishing if they did that because if they didn't want to do that, they would chose not to hear the case in the first place.

It might be my opinion but my opinion is based on following the Court over my life and it's history and evolution , another aspect you might miss is lawyers can force an issue by bringing it up in deliberations , they can force the issue but not a decision on it , but once the door is opened by one lawyer or another they are within their rights to adress it in their decision even if it's completely removed from the case and it becomes part of case law. So it seems absurd to me that no laywer will mention same sex marriage is not allowed everywhere in America and equally absurd that they won't say if it should or should not be in their final decision of any related case.

The main reason is lawyers like latin phrases ! .... and one of the favorites is, in english "it's stupid on it's face" and it would be stupid on it's face to think that the main puropse of bringing any case whatsoever is not to settle the main dispute along with whatever other issues may be involved. Another favorite is "the thing speaks for itself" and pretty much any lawsuit speaks to the fact they want a decision about if same sex mariage is a right protected under the constitution or not, the point being the lawsuit doesn't even have to say, this is the question,......... it's just so obvious that it speaks for itself.

[Jingthing]

Very interesting. However, yes I like links and have been following the legal analysis of the Boston ruling, and have read NOTHING like what you are saying. The contrary actually. We'll have to wait and see. Potentially exciting.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

The reason is.... it's not especially relevant to what you are reading about not because it's not true. What I say is legal fact but not all thet relevant to what will happen, just to what could happen legally, some combination of what I say , what they say, and what the other guy says , is what will happen.

Anyone who says they have their hands tied and can only decide on what is relevant to a case is simply wrong. As I pointed out in the NYC gun case. And would be happy to provide an infinite amount of other examples.

[MrRealDeal]

The crux of our "disagreement" is the inceremental strategy part ........... My opinion is that the incremental strategy part will be blown out of the water in the first case they hear and what seemed like an incremental case will end up being a landmark decision putting and end to the entire debate. Because I have just that much faith left in the Supreme Court .......

[Jingthing]

Well they're only human and to rule on the constitutionality of discrimination against same sex couples in marriage will be one of biggest supreme court cases in American history. I can imagine being eager to do that in their position. So if they do that, how do you think they will rule with the current court? Believe it or not, I think even with this court they would rule this discrimination is unconstitutional.

Edited June 2, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

I will go out on a limb as it were and put my otherwise only slightly tarnished Legal reputation for accurate perdictions on the line and say it will be a unanimous decision in favor of whatever complaint they hear in favor of the rights of American citizens and in the process will make it clear that all Americans have the right to "legally join together" just as Blacks Law dictionary already defines it. The reality is that it's not even possible under current legal defenitions or the constitution to make a decision other than that , it's not a question of what is legal or not .......... it's only that you can do whatever you want until a court tells you you can't.

[Jingthing]

That is quite a limb.

[Jingthing]

Turns out it wasn't quite the limb I thought it was. Now it turns a MUCH BIGGER gay marriage related SUPREME COURT case is going to indeed happen in the near future!

This is stemming from a California court pushing this issue towards the supreme court COMBINED with the Boston ruling.

It is bigger than this Boston incremental thing but it may or may not be as big as the real deal grand slam national legalization of same sex marriage. That's up to the court.

Wow!

The Prop. 8 case may provide the forum for a nationwide decision on the right to marry, nine years after the Supreme Court declared that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to private sexual conduct. But the justices could also follow the lead of the Ninth Circuit panel, which focused on the California ballot measure and reserved the broader constitutional questions for another day.

WHY would the supreme court want to wait for another day to make this historical decision on the constitutional aspects of marriage rights?

So let's say they go for it, what will they rule?

Read more: http://www.sfgate.co...L#ixzz1wwe8YzUo

Edited June 5, 2012 by Jingthing

[MrRealDeal]

What kind of sucks about that case jing is that if the court decides NOT to hear the case it means marriage would be legal again ..... If the opposite result was what would happen it would give them more motavation to take the case , thats why people say they might just skip it , because assuming their leaning towards making it legal doing nothing would accomplish that for Calif ..... obviously not for all 50 states.

Once again any case could get the job done but this ruleing is actually about a ballot meashure not about the overall question of gay marriage even though the ruling has an effect on that.

"We held only that under the particular circumstances relating to California's Proposition 8, that measure was invalid. In line with the rules governing judicial resolution of constitutional issues, we did not resolve the fundamental question that both sides asked us to: whether the Constitution prohibits the states from banning same-sex marriage.

This part doesn't help getting it to the Supreme Court either : "That question may be decided in the near future, but if so, it should be in some other case, at some other time."

If they take the case they will uphold the ruleing and in doing so will end the debate as well. Like I keep saying it's my belief they will take any and all cases to put the issue\s to rest for as long as possible until some new complaint comes along.

This case shows how a case over what is now just about a ballot measure .... it started with the actuall question but didnt rule on it so that part is actually lost on appeal, in any court but the Supreme Court ...in theory anyhow (appelate courts can't rule for or against a question the previous court did not answer) ...... So this is a great example of how the court can use something that really is unrelated as much as it seems it is not ..... The question is over what can voters do constitutionally , that could be anything , it's not gay related at all , HOWEVER like I have been pointing out the Supreme Court can make and ofetn does make a wider reaching decision based on the ..... might as get it done while the getting is good principle ! lol

Please take a min to think about what I said before you jump to the conclution that the ballot question is really a "gay marriage" question because it really isn't ...... If voters approved any other measure that someone thought was against the constitution we would be in the same place. Having a gay element to it at this point is just happenstance and not the actual question anylonger , it's just the the Supreme Court has a wider lattitude to make wide reaching decisions , in this case they would be deciding on what voters can do in ANY ballot measure not just in ones over gay issues, and perhaps might decide to also settle the believe it or not irelevant to the actual case question everyone wants answered ..... well most everyone who cares anyhow.

Like I keep saying any case will do even if the main question is only partially related , the reason they don't want to decide it on some case over a completely unrelated topic is they want litigants with representation qualified to argue it and anyone who argues any case involving gay anything and didnt not send qualified representatives to argue the issue would be at fault not the Court.

[MrRealDeal]

The reason for all this btw , is that other Courts are only allowed to discuss things relevant to the actual case or question and the Judge decides on weather or not the questions being asked by the Lawyers are permitted under this rule or not. ......

The supreme Court on the other hand asks the Lawyers the questions and is not bound by what is relevant or not as thier is no other Judge to rule their question can't be asked. NO Lawyer is going to say .... Mr. or Ms. Supreme Court Judge your question is irelevant and I don't have to answer , they will say they think it's irelevant and here is why , but the question gets asked and answered and then is allowed to be ruled upon.