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

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); 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.

Will the Supreme Court hear Perry v Brown (Prop 8 case)?

Will the Supreme Court hear Perry v Brown?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 43.5%

  • No

    Votes: 13 56.5%
  • Total voters
    23
It really wouldn't surprise me if they did, given the overarching interrelatedness of the cases at hand. Specifically, the court must determine:

--If the Loving precedent applies

--Does DOMA violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause

--Does the variation in definitions of civil marriage among the various states comport with the "Full Faith and Credit" clause

--May a state revoke civil rights previously granted, whether via judicial order, legislative act, or popular referendum

Mr Roberts strikes me as the sort of chief justice who will not want to walk down this road any more often than he absolutely has to, simply because it exposes the court to so much partisan pressure. However, the court must consider the cases, either independently or in consolidation, because there are currently contradictory federal appeals courts rulings that must be resolved, and only SCOTUS can resolve them.
 
^ I'm trying to picture what a civil war fought over the freedom of homos to marry in the south would look like.

A kind of gay 'Gone With the Wind' thing.

Ashley, Ashley, Ashley.....
 
scream4ever said:
Washington just passed a law which is now up for referendum.
Click to expand...

You're kind of technically correct -- the law cleared the legislature but was blocked from implementation. In reality, then, Washington has never had such a law.


edit: The essential element to having a law here is whether anyone actually had the chance to be married under it. Since the answer is "no", then there's no one to be the plaintiffs in any legal action, and thus no chance of a court case to establish the principle.
 
Scalia was the most grotesque appointment to the Supreme Court.

Everything about this man is repugnant.

But not a surprise that he would feel this way. What is most startling about Scalia is that he just never shuts the fuck up. While one would expect that an SC judge would comment on almost nothing in public, preferring instead to defer to delivering rulings according to law...it is always nakedly apparent that his rulings are always based on his own a priori personal biases.

He will surely go down in history as one of the worst judges in American history and if he doesn't, then there is no justice.
 
You don't understand Democracy. In a Democracy laws are made by the people or their elected representatives. And for Democracy to be meaningful, the laws must be given the meaning and effect intended. The Constitution is the most important law and it also must be given the meaning intended or the people are robbed of their Democracy. When courts abandon the intent, they destroy the Democratic legitimacy and legality of what they do. The draftors of the Constitution and the Legislators who adopted it and the people who elected them and themany generations intervening would be absolutely appalled at the bizarre way that the courts have used the Constitution to ruke our lives and destroy our democracy.
 
Benvolio said:
You don't understand Democracy.

… The [drafters] of the Constitution and the [the Constitutional Convention that] adopted it and the people who [delegated] them and [the many] generations intervening would be absolutely appalled at the bizarre way that the courts have used the Constitution to [rule] our lives and destroy our democracy.
Click to expand...

What is the primary difference between a democracy and a republic and how is that distinction germane to the matter set forth in the Prop 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry, Perry v. Brown, Perry v. Schwarzenegger) case?
 
Benvolio doesn't understand that we're not supposed to be a democracy: the US is a constitutional Republic. The Founding Fathers understood that democracy can be dangerous to liberty.
 
Scalia is a piece of puke,period.
 
Just_Believe18 said:
Well I guess we know where Scat Scallia will be standing on this issue:

http://news.yahoo.com/scalia-says-abortion-gay-rights-easy-cases-073501926.html


What a piece of shit.
Click to expand...

rareboy said:
Scalia was the most grotesque appointment to the Supreme Court.

Everything about this man is repugnant.

But not a surprise that he would feel this way. What is most startling about Scalia is that he just never shuts the fuck up. While one would expect that an SC judge would comment on almost nothing in public, preferring instead to defer to delivering rulings according to law...it is always nakedly apparent that his rulings are always based on his own a priori personal biases.

He will surely go down in history as one of the worst judges in American history and if he doesn't, then there is no justice.
Click to expand...

GiancarloC said:
He's a total scum bag... and I would simply say "slavery was legal in this country until the 1860s. Does that make it right because it was legal for a long time?"

His argument is a total strawman.
Click to expand...

Ninja108 said:
Scalia is a piece of puke,period.
Click to expand...


Scalia is a reminder of why we need to prevent Republican presidents from appointing Supreme Court justices.
 
Ted Olsen is one of a very rare and dying breed: a sane, principled, actual conservative. Pity he never got appointed to SCOTUS.
 
GiancarloC said:
Except this country nor any other in the West is a democracy. They are mostly republics. Germany is a federal republic, France is a Presidential Republic (more power on the executive), the US is a federal republic... prop 8 has no democratic legitimacy either way.

I guess one could take your argument and apply it as a defense for slavery and segregation too.
Click to expand...
A Republic is a representative Democracy in which the people rule by their votes for representatives. Slavery was ended by amending the Constitution, while segregation was ended by invoking the 14 th amendment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top