6/26/2013 2:56 PM
Except that that's wrong...  The ruling was specifically designed as a cop-out so they didn't have to rule on whether the decision was legally sound.
6/26/2013 2:57 PM
The ruling was that there was no legal grounds for a challenge to Walker's ruling.  They very deliberately avoided any ruling on whether it had been legally sound in the first place.  Hint: it probably wasn't.
6/26/2013 3:04 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 6/26/2013 2:56:00 PM (view original):
Except that that's wrong...  The ruling was specifically designed as a cop-out so they didn't have to rule on whether the decision was legally sound.
I'm not talking about the SCOTUS decision. Im talking about the appeals court that upheld walker previously.
6/26/2013 3:26 PM
Walker's decision was NOT upheld.  The challenge to it was vacated.

Big difference.  Walker's decision is still reviewable, just not on the same grounds that the improper challenge was issued.
6/26/2013 3:41 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Hmm, why don't you explain it to me then, mr "I don't understand the constitution."

The way I understand it:

Walker tosses prop 8.
Proponents of prop 8 (but not the state) file appeal in federal court.
Federal court upholds Walkers ruling.
Same proponents file appeal to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS tosses the case (and the federal court ruling) on standing grounds.
Walker's decision stands.

Where am I wrong?
"SCOTUS tosses the case (and the federal court ruling) on standing grounds."

Your words.

If the federal court ruling that upheld the Walker decision was tossed, doesn't that mean that Walker's decision has officially not been upheld?

Even in "victory", you're acting incredibly stupid with your inability to know what the **** you are talking about.
6/26/2013 3:53 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 6/26/2013 3:26:00 PM (view original):
Walker's decision was NOT upheld.  The challenge to it was vacated.

Big difference.  Walker's decision is still reviewable, just not on the same grounds that the improper challenge was issued.
The appellate court upheld his decision last year on the merits of the case. SCOTUS threw the case out on standing, not merit.

Of course his decision is reviewable now, as long as someone with standing files an appeal.
6/26/2013 3:55 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 3:41:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 1:06:00 PM (view original):
Hmm, why don't you explain it to me then, mr "I don't understand the constitution."

The way I understand it:

Walker tosses prop 8.
Proponents of prop 8 (but not the state) file appeal in federal court.
Federal court upholds Walkers ruling.
Same proponents file appeal to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS tosses the case (and the federal court ruling) on standing grounds.
Walker's decision stands.

Where am I wrong?
"SCOTUS tosses the case (and the federal court ruling) on standing grounds."

Your words.

If the federal court ruling that upheld the Walker decision was tossed, doesn't that mean that Walker's decision has officially not been upheld?

Even in "victory", you're acting incredibly stupid with your inability to know what the **** you are talking about.
****, you're obsessed with semantics. The appellate court upheld Walker's ruling on the merits of the case last year. Are you arguing that that didnt happen?
6/26/2013 4:03 PM
So the ********** who nitpicks every word in every sentence until he finds his "GOTCHA!!" moment is whining because someone is "obsessed with semantics"?

That's ******* hilarious.
6/26/2013 4:11 PM
From a  legal standpoint, no.

If a "legal" appeal took place now, it could be decided by a different judge who could vacate Walker's decision with a different conclusion.

Keep in mind, Walker's decision, that a ban on SSM violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, runs contrary to Baker v. Nelson, in that SCOTUS dismissed an appeal on exactly that grounds "for want of a substantial federal question".

Nothing that happened today puts a dent in the validity of Baker v. Nelson.
6/26/2013 4:28 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 4:11:00 PM (view original):
From a  legal standpoint, no.

If a "legal" appeal took place now, it could be decided by a different judge who could vacate Walker's decision with a different conclusion.

Keep in mind, Walker's decision, that a ban on SSM violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, runs contrary to Baker v. Nelson, in that SCOTUS dismissed an appeal on exactly that grounds "for want of a substantial federal question".

Nothing that happened today puts a dent in the validity of Baker v. Nelson.
Again, no ****.

I'm not arguing that the appellate courts ruling is still in effect. My point is that we really only have one benchmark to consider when trying to guess whether or not his ruling was biased--the apellate court's review. The appellate court did not overturn his decision. Sure, their ruling is gone now due to a procedural ruling from SCOTUS, but that really doesn't matter when we're considering whether or not Walker's decision was biased.
6/26/2013 4:30 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 4:11:00 PM (view original):
From a  legal standpoint, no.

If a "legal" appeal took place now, it could be decided by a different judge who could vacate Walker's decision with a different conclusion.

Keep in mind, Walker's decision, that a ban on SSM violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, runs contrary to Baker v. Nelson, in that SCOTUS dismissed an appeal on exactly that grounds "for want of a substantial federal question".

Nothing that happened today puts a dent in the validity of Baker v. Nelson.
And, as you've pointed out multiple times, you aren't qualified to give an opinion on whether or not something is constitutional.
6/26/2013 4:41 PM

So, if one appellate court doesn't throw out a ruling, it can't be biased?

WTF?

6/26/2013 4:52 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 4:41:00 PM (view original):

So, if one appellate court doesn't throw out a ruling, it can't be biased?

WTF?

Not necessarily, But it's the only evidence we have one way or another. His decision was reviewed by an appellate court and upheld. If it wasn't legally sound, it would have been overturned.
6/26/2013 5:01 PM
Are you sure?   The judiciary branch never makes a mistake?   They understand everything clearly every time?

6/26/2013 5:01 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 4:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 4:11:00 PM (view original):
From a  legal standpoint, no.

If a "legal" appeal took place now, it could be decided by a different judge who could vacate Walker's decision with a different conclusion.

Keep in mind, Walker's decision, that a ban on SSM violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, runs contrary to Baker v. Nelson, in that SCOTUS dismissed an appeal on exactly that grounds "for want of a substantial federal question".

Nothing that happened today puts a dent in the validity of Baker v. Nelson.
And, as you've pointed out multiple times, you aren't qualified to give an opinion on whether or not something is constitutional.
I'm not giving an opinion on whether anything is Constitutional.

I'm pointing out what SCOTUS has said about Constitutionality of SSM.  It's their opinion.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.