DOMA Struck Down

[skinnay 0]

eat one bigots

[turtlespeed 212]

skinnay

eat one bigots

Eat one what?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jclalor 12]

Quote

skinnay

eat one bigots

+1

[jclalor 12]

I guess that since traditional marriage is no longer defended, the divorce flood gates will now open up wide on all of those Christian couples, who felt that allowing Gay marriage would cheapen, and ruin their own marriage.

[champu 1]

turtlespeed

***eat one bigots

Eat one what?

Whatever you want, as long as it belongs to a consenting adult. And then later you can marry its owner, regardless of what it was, without being discriminated against by the federal government.

[livendive 8]

Sweet! Nice to see some affirmation of equality and a rejection of governance by religion.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

This is some bullshit. It's been some bullshit. That it was left up to the Courts to do what Congress and the President should have done years ago is despicable.

So Congresspeople and the President will go on television and applaud the Court's decision. No. They will be applauding the Court for doing what they should have done but didn't.

This is why Courts are unelected, Mr. President.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jclalor 12]

***

lawrocket

This is some bullshit. It's been some bullshit. That it was left up to the Courts to do what Congress and the President should have done years ago is despicable.

So Congresspeople and the President will go on television and applaud the Court's decision. No. They will be applauding the Court for doing what they should have done but didn't.

This is why Courts are unelected, Mr. President.

I thought that's why we have the high courts, to insure the rights of the minority cannot be voted away by the majority. The majority of Congress and the President endorsed DOMA, now that the President has changed sides , do you really think he stood a prayer to get the Republicans in Congress to toss DOMA out?

[yoink 321]

champu

******eat one bigots

Eat one what?

Whatever you want, as long as it belongs to a consenting adult. And then later you can marry its owner, regardless of what it was, without being discriminated against by the federal government.

[quade 3]

This restores a bit of faith I had lost in the Supremes over the last few days.

I don't like 5/4 decisions though. I never have. They feel like too much of a win when in fact the slightest shift in wind could have changed the outcome. They tend to show partisanship and splits in ideology rather than proving the strength and fairness of an argument.

Human rights should never be that close of a call.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[livendive 8]

I think it's amusing that the left-leaning justices basically deferred to federalism as the basis for their judgement and the right-leaning dissenters essentially discounted the House Republicans as having no standing to defend DOMA.

Edit to add: Also, it was not possible for the President to do the right thing, as the clear intentions of the Republican majority in the House are to deny him any action. So while the plaintiffs and defendant agreed on the proper disposition of the case, actually carrying that out was not possible within the law. I'm not sure how one could bring a case to court that pits Congress against a President when there is disagreement on a constitutional issue. Is that even possible?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[ryoder 1,400]

Omigawd!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVmB3lRjCmc

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[rhaig 0]

jclalor

I thought that's why we have the high courts, to insure the rights of the minority cannot be voted away by the majority. The majority of Congress and the President endorsed DOMA, now that the President has changed sides , do you really think he stood a prayer to get the Republicans in Congress to toss DOMA out?

the thing that ticks me off is that we are having unconstitutional laws passed and waiting for the judicial branch to be the police. The idea was that any of the 3 branches should be able to recognize unconstitutionality and stop the law from going forward. That's not happening.

--
Rob

[kallend 1,648]

jclalor

I guess that since traditional marriage is no longer defended, the divorce flood gates will now open up wide on all of those Christian couples, who felt that allowing Gay marriage would cheapen, and ruin their own marriage.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,648]

lawrocket

This is some bullshit. It's been some bullshit. That it was left up to the Courts to do what Congress and the President should have done years ago is despicable.

So Congresspeople and the President will go on television and applaud the Court's decision. No. They will be applauding the Court for doing what they should have done but didn't.

This is why Courts are unelected, Mr. President.

Which president?

I believe the current administration wouldn't defend DOMA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

jclalor

I thought that's why we have the high courts, to insure the rights of the minority cannot be voted away by the majority. The majority of Congress and the President endorsed DOMA, now that the President has changed sides , do you really think he stood a prayer to get the Republicans in Congress to toss DOMA out?

The GOP - they wouldn't let DOMA die. Back in 2009-2010 - the GOP stood no choice. Then when the POTUS knew he couldnnt pass it he came out in favor of ending DOMA and became the first gay president. Remember?

By the way, I just read the DOMA opinions. You GOTTA read Scalia! And I think that Scalia makes a damned good point in Part I - "But wait, the reader wonders - Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. True, says the majority, but judicial review must march on regardless, lest we 'undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'

"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of Supremacy over the people's Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere 'primary' in its role."

Now, I can see why the majority found standing and I agree with it. But the procedural posture and the political and procedural games that were played to get this to the SCOTUS now are, to me, pretty disturbing.

Indeed, the Prop 8 case (while I applaud the result) has left me downright fearful. Here in Cali, the voters passed Prop 8. This was done because the representatives would not - bypassing the legislature. So then Prop 8 gets challenged. And the State doesn't defend it. So people try to get in because the same people who wouldn't pass it wouldn't defend it. And the federal court says, "only the people who won't defend it can defend it."

So the California system of direct democracy (trust me, I'm no big fan of it) has been effectively neutered because any time a ballot Proposition is passed, all the executive branch has to do is not defend it. And any challenge becomes one-sided.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,648]

skinnay

eat one bigots

Not only DOMA, but Sen. Wendy Davis in Texas filibustered the anti-choice bill to defeat.

Great day for freedom!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[melch 0]

Quote

skinnay wrote:
.

eat one bigots

Not only DOMA, but Sen. Wendy Davis in Texas filibustered the anti-choice bill to defeat.

Great day for freedom!

+1

[kallend 1,648]

skinnay

eat one bigots

House Republicans wasted $2.3 million in tax payer dollars defending DOMA. Remember that next time they lecture on wasteful spending

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

Which president?

I believe the current administration wouldn't defend DOMA.

Well, the current POTUS did not defend DOMA. But he enforced it. His Justice department kept up with the appeals. Ever hear of anybody appealing decisions asking to "affirm?" Me, neither. But that's what they did.

I suppose that the President could have just proposed to repeal DOMA. But that would put the spotlight on him and he could face some political pressure. Can't do that. Instead he punted to the courts to work it out over a period of years.

And people have suffered...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 3]

lawrocket

Instead he punted to the courts to work it out over a period of years.

Last time I checked, that's actually how it's supposed to work.

Legislative creates the law.
Executive enforces the law.
Judicial interprets the law.

A system of checks and balances.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

skinnay

eat one bigots

eat one baguette

mmmm, carbs

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

lawrocket

That it was left up to the Courts to do what Congress and the President should have done years ago is despicable.

So Congresspeople and the President will go on television and applaud the Court's decision. No. They will be applauding the Court for doing what they should have done but didn't.

This is why Courts are unelected, Mr. President.

this - the legislature is a pile of cowards

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

quade

This restores a bit of faith I had lost in the Supremes over the last few days.

I don't like 5/4 decisions though. I never have. They feel like too much of a win when in fact the slightest shift in wind could have changed the outcome. They tend to show partisanship and splits in ideology rather than proving the strength and fairness of an argument.

Human rights should never be that close of a call.

and this

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***Instead he punted to the courts to work it out over a period of years.

Last time I checked, that's actually how it's supposed to work.

Legislative creates the law.
Executive enforces the law.
Judicial interprets the law.

A system of checks and balances.

Or the legislature reepeals DOMA and the executive signs it.

Remember when Congress repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell? And the President signed it? That was in 2010. Think they coulda wiped out DOMA? Sure they could have. It couldn't have been stopped.

But they didn't. Know why? Because the Presidential election cycle was starting and there wasn't enough polling to see whether or not it would be held against him or the Congress for doing it.

Yeah - DOMA could have EASILY ended 30 months ago. But that would mean putting your name on something.

That is the gutless "pass the buck" politics I abhor.

My wife is hotter than your wife.