CT Supreme Court Grants Gay Marriage Rights

[NickCole]

In cases involving same sex marriage, “the Fed” operates under provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which states:

Ah. A gay man who knows what DOMA is about. Thank you.

 

[TX-Beau]

Yeah. Sure. Right Nick. I forgot about DOMA but then so did you. Odd don't you think for someone with so many millions of years of experience.

I'm under no obligation to respond to you, and if there isn't a point - such as when you start wandering off into left field about your obsession with Obama, and how his minions are out to get goodness and decency, I'm not going to bother with that. Why would I?

 

[NickCole]

Yeah. Sure. Right Nick. I forgot about DOMA but then so did you.

Hardly.

I never forget about DOMA or Don't Ask Don't Tell. Lessons learned during the 90s were too important to forget where they came from, as were the lessons we learned during the 80s when AIDS was the prevelant issue and the 70s when liberation and basic rights (and okay sex and partying) were the main concern.

But DOMA isn't the reason the ruling won't be appealed to the US Supreme Court. The reason is as I said, this is a State Constitutional issue.

I'm under no obligation to respond to you

Nobody said you are.

But deciding to not respond is different from stating your point and then declaring "/argument concluded" like a child stomping out of the room.

 

[opinterph]

… these laws [banning gay marriage] are inherently discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional …

Ultimately this will end up before SCOTUS, because the US constitution requires that states recognize as legal things like contracts and divorces and yes marriages contrated by other states …

In spite of DOMA, I think your reasoning is sound and the matter of interstate recognition of same sex marriage may indeed come before SCOTUS someday …

The Case for a Right of Marriage Recognition: Why Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Should Protect Same-Sex Couples Who Change States

Imagine a world where your marital status changed when you moved to a new state. Imagine being denied insurance, medical decision-making authority, or even parental rights by bureaucrats who dismissed your marriage license as if it were some worthless foreign currency. Imagine a world where, with no due process, a state could effectively divorce you against your will.

Absurd? Yes. Unimaginable? For most people it is, but not for gays and lesbians.

 

[herewego]

Civil Rights should NEVER be up for vote nor debate!

 

[construct]

No the Fed does not require that with same sex marriage.

There is no argument to appeal in this ruling to the US Supreme Court.

There is a difference, in knowlege and understanding, and perceptiveness, between those who've been on the front lines doing the actual work of change and those who talk about change but aren't involved in the action of it.

I concur with your judgment but offer an alternative reasoning.

The reason the Connecticut decision cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court is that the plaintiffs did not raise a federal question. The U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in cases and controversies arising out of federal law and in cases among parties who are residents of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The plaintiffs were all Connecticut residents, asked for no monetary damages, and did not raise a federal question. While the Connecticut civil union law may violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the issue was not before the court. Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, and the case cannot be appealed.

Further, the full faith and credit clause has never been construed to require that states recognize foreign marriages that conflict with strong public policy. However since divorces (unlike marriages) are judgments, they are enforceable from state to state.

 

[pmpinla]

I concur with your judgment but offer an alternative reasoning.

The reason the Connecticut decision cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court is that the plaintiffs did not raise a federal question. The U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in cases and controversies arising out of federal law and in cases among parties who are residents of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The plaintiffs were all Connecticut residents, asked for no monetary damages, and did not raise a federal question. While the Connecticut civil union law may violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the issue was not before the court. Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, and the case cannot be appealed.

Further, the full faith and credit clause has never been construed to require that states recognize foreign marriages that conflict with strong public policy. However since divorces (unlike marriages) are judgments, they are enforceable from state to state.

As I pointed out in my prior post, the US Supreme Court can review ANY decision by a lower court, state or federal, whether or not a federal question is involved. Historically the Supreme Court has chosen to leave the interpretation of a state's constitution to that state's supreme court, but there is nothing in the US Constitution which obliges it to do so. Consequently, there is nothing to prevent SCOTUS from reviewing the Connecticut supreme court's decision in this matter should an appeal be lodged. The chances, however, are slim for a grant of certiorari if the decision by the Connecticut supreme court is based on its interpretation of the Connecticut constitution. But I want to repeat to the readers of this thread that there is no decision by any court in this country which SCOTUS cannot review, should it so wish. Congress has set forth certain criteria which permit a case to be filed in the federal courts, such as suits between residents of different states (jurisdictions), or a minimum dollar amount in controversy, etc., but these are just permissive rules and do not bind SCOTUS to hear only those suits. Congress cannot stop SCOTUS from hearing appeals in any case, as it tried to do unsuccessfully in the beginning of the 19th Century; but Congress does have the power to direct what types of cases can be filed in federal court, and hence appealed to SCOTUS.

 

[construct]

As I pointed out in my prior post, the US Supreme Court can review ANY decision by a lower court, state or federal, whether or not a federal question is involved. Historically the Supreme Court has chosen to leave the interpretation of a state's constitution to that state's supreme court, but there is nothing in the US Constitution which obliges it to do so. Consequently, there is nothing to prevent SCOTUS from reviewing the Connecticut supreme court's decision in this matter should an appeal be lodged. The chances, however, are slim for a grant of certiorari if the decision by the Connecticut supreme court is based on its interpretation of the Connecticut constitution. But I want to repeat to the readers of this thread that there is no decision by any court in this country which SCOTUS cannot review, should it so wish. Congress has set forth certain criteria which permit a case to be filed in the federal courts, such as suits between residents of different states, or a minimum dollar amount in controversy, etc., but these are just permissive rules and do not bind SCOTUS to hear only those suits.

My understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction for an appeal in this case rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) which reads in pertinent part,

Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari . . . where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States . . . .

In this case, neither party raised any question on the ground of the statute's being repugnant to the Constitution etc. of the United States. Are you suggesting that the defendants here could raise such a question for the first time in a petition for certiorari when the Connecticut Supreme Court did not rule on the question?

 

[pmpinla]

My understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction for an appeal in this case rests on 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) which reads in pertinent part,

"Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari . . . where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States . . . ."

In this case, neither party raised any question on the ground of the statute's being repugnant to the Constitution etc. of the United States. Are you suggesting that the defendants here could raise such a question for the first time in a petition for certiorari when the Connecticut Supreme Court did not rule on the question?

Congress certainly has the authority to dictate what cases may be brought in federal courts, as your quote from 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) demonstrates. Congress does not have the right, however, to dictate to the U.S. Supreme Court which cases is may hear. As I pointed out above, in the beginning of the 19th Century, Congress tried to curtail the right of the Supreme Court to rule on certain cases. Congress lost that fight and since then the Supreme Court has ascribed to itself the power to hear whatever cases it wants to hear. So while Congress may legislate what cases you or I may bring in federal courts, it does not have the right to dictate to the Supreme Court what cases that court may hear.

Thus, my point was that while the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in this case (which I should say I have not read) may rest entirely on that state's laws and constitution, and may not entail a ruling which is "repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States", i.e., it presents no federal matter, that does not theoretically prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from hearing an appeal from that decision should it choose to do so, since it, unlike you and me, is not bound by 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a). The likelihood, however, of any such review is extremely remote because, as I pointed out in a previous post, the Supreme Court historically has deferred to the state supreme courts in cases which involve the interpretation of their own state constitutions. But it is legally inaccurate to say that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review this case or any case from any other court in the U.S., just because those cases do not conform to the precepts of 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a) or any other Act of Congress.

 

[construct]

pimpinla,

I would love to see a non-diversity case in which the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision based entirely on state law.

Article 3, sec. 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction. These first two paragraphs are relevant. The third is about juries and venue.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. (emphasis added)

The constitution does not grant the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction in non-diversity cases which do not arise under federal law. Until you can show me such a case, I remain unconvinced.

And while you're at it, could you tell me what error you think the defendants might argue that the Conn. Supr. Ct. made that they might want the U.S. Supreme Court to consider? The case is styled Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health.

 

[pmpinla]

pimpinla,

I would love to see a non-diversity case in which the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision based entirely on state law.

Article 3, sec. 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction. These first two paragraphs are relevant. The third is about juries and venue.

The constitution does not grant the U.S. Supreme Court jurisdiction in non-diversity cases which do not arise under federal law. Until you can show me such a case, I remain unconvinced.

And while you're at it, could you tell me what error you think the defendants might argue that the Conn. Supr. Ct. made that they might want the U.S. Supreme Court to consider? The case is styled Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health.

I pointed out previously that SCOTUS has historically deferred to state supreme court's in their interpretation of their own constitutions. Therefore, review of Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health is highly unlikely (assuming the decision was not based on the US Constitution or federal law). But just because review is unlikely, does not mean that it is impossible, a distinction which seems to have eluded you over the course of this entire discussion. Since the beginning of the 19th Century, SCOTUS has allocated to itself, following a series of contests with Congress, the right to hear any case it wants to, whether or not a case raises a federal issue or falls within the purview of statutes which seek to define or limit the types of cases which may be brought in federal court. You should research the first 100 years of history of SCOTUS to educate yourself on this matter; it makes for very interesting and eye-opening reading.

To reiterate my point for the last time, as a practical matter of course you are right that there is virtually no possibility that SCOTUS will not hear an appeal from the Connecticut supreme court's decision in this matter, but from a theoretical point of view, that does not mean to say that SCOTUS does not have the power to do so should it so choose.

 

[construct]

I pointed out previously that SCOTUS has historically deferred to state supreme court's in their interpretation of their own constitutions. Therefore, review of Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health is highly unlikely (assuming the decision was not based on the US Constitution or federal law). But just because review is unlikely, does not mean that it is impossible, a distinction which seems to have eluded you over the course of this entire discussion. Since the beginning of the 19th Century, SCOTUS has allocated to itself, following a series of contests with Congress, the right to hear any case it wants to, whether or not a case raises a federal issue or falls within the purview of statutes which seek to define or limit the types of cases which may be brought in federal court. You should research the first 100 years of history of SCOTUS to educate yourself on this matter; it makes for very interesting and eye-opening reading.

To reiterate my point for the last time, as a practical matter of course you are right that there is virtually no possibility that SCOTUS will not hear an appeal from the Connecticut supreme court's decision in this matter, but from a theoretical point of view, that does not mean to say that SCOTUS does not have the power to do so should it so choose.

First of all, I do indeed recognize the distinction between "highly unlikely" and "impossible." The distinction did not elude me. If it had eluded me, I would not have persisted in this discussion.

Second, I have cited both statutory and constitutional provisions in support of my position while you have cited no authority whatsoever, a distinction which seems to have eluded you over the course of this entire discussion.

To reiterate my point for the last time, I'll just cop out and quote from Encarta, a popular on-line encyclopedia, which agrees that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case, that the Connecticut Supreme Court is the court of last resort in this case, that there isn't anywhere left to resort to.

The Supreme Court wields complete authority over the federal courts, but it has only limited power over state courts. The Court has the final word on cases heard by federal courts, and it writes procedures that these courts must follow. All federal courts must abide by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal laws and the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court’s interpretations of federal law and the Constitution also apply to the state courts, but the Court cannot interpret state law or issues arising under state constitutions, and it does not supervise state court operations.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302/supreme_court_of_the_united_states.html