The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

It's possible that Ginsburg was one of the ones willing to take up the cases. Though I'd guess that those 0-3 who wanted to hear them were Thomas, Scalia and Alito. Roberts is trying to develop a legacy and would be hesitant to put his name on anything.

Ginsburg might also have been referring to the possibility of the 6th ruling first, and then they'd basically be obliged to take it up soon.

Perhaps this was a last-minute compromise; tell the 6th what's going to go down rather than wait until it's in the docket (lumping it with the appeals).

I still want to know what that douchebag Scalia was on about. Maybe he's written a hell of a dissent.
 
T-Rexx said:
The 9th circuit court of appeals has just struck down gay marriage bans in Idaho and Nevada.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/gay-marriage-bans-idaho-nevada-struck-26027055

No word yet on whether the decision will be stayed. I presume Idaho and Nevada will appeal.
Click to expand...

The case was remanded for orders, declining to do so themselves.

Nevada has said the state will not appeal and the Coalition does not have standing. We need to wait for word from Idaho before we know what happens next.
 
Alnitak said:
The case was remanded for orders, declining to do so themselves.

Nevada has said the state will not appeal and the Coalition does not have standing. We need to wait for word from Idaho before we know what happens next.
Click to expand...

You can be sure Idaho will appeal this ruling.
 
Kulindahr said:
So the cowards in SCOTUS are waiting to be able to say they're just following the nation.
Click to expand...

The law is the law. Two things: the law is the law but opponents of the law try to politicise objective legal decisions and undermine the proper authority of the courts instead of accepting the law or trying to change it through the proper channels. A competent court will act politically, never to interfere in the political processes of the legislators as they make the law, but to defend its autonomy. It is proper for the court to deploy political strategy at will to nullify political interference.

The law may well definitively be that sexual orientation shall not form any barrier to marriage. This finding will definitely cause a faction of the population to work against the court itself if it dared to pronounce that fact. The court is entitled, even obliged, to use political manoeuvring to marginalise any faction that would seek to censor the court in accordance with that faction's moral whims and prejudices.

And second, the court truly is responsible to take into account the changing views of the population and to watch how those views evolve over time, because the meaning of the law changes over time, as your own justice Souter so ably explained in his Harvard commencement speech in 2010. The court is supposed to sit back and watch the falderall evolve before stepping into the fray.
 
pussy·foot verb \ˈpu̇-sē-ˌfu̇t\
1. to avoid making a definite decision or stating a definite opinion because of fear, doubt, etc.
 
I love the momentum of these last weeks, but I guess my main issue with SCOTUS is the fact that all these tax dollars are being spent by right-wing nuts tilting at ever-growing windmills. And instead of just cutting to the chase and granting equality in all 50 states in one fell swoop, they sit back and wait, instead of finishing this and getting on to other issues which actually matter! In so many European countries, this whole issue is over and done with and not a topic of discussion anymore - it seems strange that the US is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the future.
 
Teddybear71 said:
I love the momentum of these last weeks, but I guess my main issue with SCOTUS is the fact that all these tax dollars are being spent by right-wing nuts tilting at ever-growing windmills. And instead of just cutting to the chase and granting equality in all 50 states in one fell swoop, they sit back and wait, instead of finishing this and getting on to other issues which actually matter! In so many European countries, this whole issue is over and done with and not a topic of discussion anymore - it seems strange that the US is being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the future.
Click to expand...

The right is determined because they still have a reasonable chance of winning this issue.

SCOTUS is balanced on a knife edge. Four justices definitely will vote against gay marriage. Four will probably vote for it. One seems to be leaning in our favor. That means this entire national deliberation ultimately depends on one man. If the right can find an argument that persuades that one person that states should have authority to determine marriage for themselves, then none of the many courts that have found in our favor will matter.

I regard the recent rejection of all gay marriage appeals as a problematic sign. It takes only four justices to accept a case. If the four liberal justices thought they had the votes to win, I think they would have accepted at least one case. They may have preferred to wait, rather than to force the issue now, and lose.
 
Alnitak said:
Why deny the seven cases and take this one? Latta v. Otter is nothing special.
Click to expand...

Agreed that a stay would make NO SENSE here. If they were waiting on the 6th, they would've kept the other stays until then. Idaho, Alaska and Montana have to decide if that kind of grandstanding will get them anywhere.
 
For the justices with integrity, this action has no real downside.

  • The reasoning of the junior courts is upheld. While not specifically endorsed, the body of legal thought brought to the Supreme Court for review is sufficiently free of legal error to be allowed to rest as settled law. There are clearly no egregious errors. And this may be said of a set of cases that must be recognised as substantial and pressing.
  • A message is sent to recalcitrant circuit courts: your peers did it correctly in ruling for equality rather than against it.

For a justice or two without integrity but who nonetheless still express some regard for the law, the action allows them to do the right thing under cover of procedural obscurity. So too for those who view the political obstacles to the independent functioning of the court as formidable.

And for Scalia, the delusion that he cannot battle the dragon in thirty states, but he might just yet get to save the Sixth. If the Sixth is that churlish. If it can think up something new that was not already dismissed from the pile of rubbish put before the court. He's kidding himself. Or, maybe this is his last vanity: he gets to lose, but without making a fool of himself in written reasons for decision.

I absolutely see why this route was taken.
 
bankside said:
For the justices with integrity, this action has no real downside.

  • The reasoning of the junior courts is upheld. While not specifically endorsed, the body of legal thought brought to the Supreme Court for review is sufficiently free of legal error to be allowed to rest as settled law. There are clearly no egregious errors. And this may be said of a set of cases that must be recognised as substantial and pressing.
  • A message is sent to recalcitrant circuit courts: your peers did it correctly in ruling for equality rather than against it.

For a justice or two without integrity but who nonetheless still express some regard for the law, the action allows them to do the right thing under cover of procedural obscurity. So too for those who view the political obstacles to the independent functioning of the court as formidable.

And for Scalia, the delusion that he cannot battle the dragon in thirty states, but he might just yet get to save the Sixth. If the Sixth is that churlish. If it can think up something new that was not already dismissed from the pile of rubbish put before the court. He's kidding himself. Or, maybe this is his last vanity: he gets to lose, but without making a fool of himself in written reasons for decision.

I absolutely see why this route was taken.
Click to expand...

Sutton will be the deciding vote for the 6th Circuit. He did not discount many of the merit arguments made by the appellees. Instead, he largely questioned the role of federal courts. Being a traditional conservative, Sutton does not believe federal courts should exercise judicial review.
 
Alnitak said:
Sutton will be the deciding vote for the 6th Circuit. He did not discount many of the merit arguments made by the appellees. Instead, he largely questioned the role of federal courts. Being a traditional conservative, Sutton does not believe federal courts should exercise judicial review.
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm going to trip on US terminology and fall flat on my face if I don't ask; when you say federal court do you mean things like circuit courts as well as the Supreme Court? What is the scope of "federal" in this context?
 
Federal lawsuit was just filed in Wyoming seeking compliance with the 10th Circuit, and the first such lawsuit filed since July 1 in Colorado.

NCLR Press Release

The couples will ask the court for an immediate order directing state officials to comply with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit establishing that a state’s refusal to allow same-sex couples to marry violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Click to expand...

Link to the Complaint


There had already been a state lawsuit that was proceeding very slowly.
 
bankside said:
Sorry I'm going to trip on US terminology and fall flat on my face if I don't ask; when you say federal court do you mean things like circuit courts as well as the Supreme Court? What is the scope of "federal" in this context?
Click to expand...

The federal judiciary is the national court system that presides over questions of federal question, that is, matters of federal law and US Constitution. On such matters, state courts may weigh in, but the federal judiciary has precedence. No state may disobey a federal court.

The federal judiciary has three levels: at least one district for each state and territory, regional courts of appeals for 13 circuits (11 among states, plus DC and the special Federal Circuit), and the US Supreme Court at the top.

State courts may use similar terminology, but they are independent unless their decisions on federal laws are superceded by a federal court, but state courts usually do not decide matters of federal question except under extraordinary circumstances such as this issue.
 
bankside said:
Sorry I'm going to trip on US terminology and fall flat on my face if I don't ask; when you say federal court do you mean things like circuit courts as well as the Supreme Court? What is the scope of "federal" in this context?
Click to expand...

Federal =
District Courts, the lowest level, courts of original jurisdiction
Circuit Courts, the courts of appeal from the District Courts
Supreme Court
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top