Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/31/2012 7:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 7:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/31/2012 7:44:00 PM (view original):
I meant Federal interference.

The state supreme court ruling should be the final word on this issue.

Sure, that'd be great.

So that would uphold prop 8.

Glad you agree with the will of the people.

I didn't realize prop 8 had been challenged at the state supreme court level.  I thought you were referring to the prop 22 decision.

Either way, if the supreme court decides not to hear the case, prop 8 is overturned.

The correct decision is to overturn the Federal rulings and leave it to the state.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/31/2012 8:20:00 PM (view original):
The correct decision is to overturn the Federal rulings and leave it to the state.

So the Supreme Court would have to hear the case and issue a decision?

I guess so.

That is what the case demands.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 8:31:00 PM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 5/31/2012 8:20:00 PM (view original):
The correct decision is to overturn the Federal rulings and leave it to the state.

So the Supreme Court would have to hear the case and issue a decision?

The Supreme Court could reference and affirm Baker v. Nelson as the binding precedent and throw out the lower court's (i.e. Walker's) decision, since it came to a contrary conclusion.

It could, but as I said before, baker wasn't a normal ruling. The 2nd part of stare decisis doesn't really apply. It's unlikely that they would automatically fall back on baker.

Since I don't have a legal background, I had to Google "stare decisis".   From what I can tell, that is the legal principal which states that judges in a lower court are obliged to respect a binding precedent established by a superior court.

Seems to me like Walker, in his ruling to overturn Proposition 8, blatantly disregarded the U.S. Supreme Court's previous decision in Baker v. Nelson with respect to the 14th amendment and same-sex marriage.

That seems like a no-no.

It's more complicated than that. If any argument can be made that CA's law is different than the law in Baker, then precedent isn't automatic. Things are further complicated when the supreme court ruling was a summary disposition as opposed to a formal decision. In the case of Baker, the summary disposition relieves the supreme court (assuming perry gets there) of the usual precedent requirements.

Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 10:44:00 PM (view original):
It's more complicated than that. If any argument can be made that CA's law is different than the law in Baker, then precedent isn't automatic. Things are further complicated when the supreme court ruling was a summary disposition as opposed to a formal decision. In the case of Baker, the summary disposition relieves the supreme court (assuming perry gets there) of the usual precedent requirements.

That's not what I'm reading:

"Summary affirmances and dismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction and do leave undisturbed the judgment appealed from. They do prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions."

In this case, the "precise issues" in Baker v. Nelson were (a) "the fundamental right to marry under the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment," and (b) "discrimination based on gender under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment".  The summary dismissal is considered a decision on the merits of the case.  In other words, the 14th amendment does not apply to same-sex marriage.

Not much wiggle room there for the Prop 8 overturn to stand.

It's still more complicated than that. I'm not going to try to explain, we will have an answer from the supreme court soon enough (assuming they hear the case).

Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Traditionally, marriage was between people of the same race.  The court still applied the right to marry to interracial couples who, traditionally, hadn't had the right to marry.

You really don't understand the difference between two races and two sexes, do you?

Were your Barbies not anatomically correct?

Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 11:24:00 PM (view original):
It's still more complicated than that. I'm not going to try to explain, we will have an answer from the supreme court soon enough (assuming they hear the case).

Sounds like you don't know how to get out of the corner you've argued yourself into.

It's always more complicated when you can't explain what you're arguing.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/1/2012 9:16:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 11:24:00 PM (view original):
It's still more complicated than that. I'm not going to try to explain, we will have an answer from the supreme court soon enough (assuming they hear the case).

Sounds like you don't know how to get out of the corner you've argued yourself into.

I can't explain it. I don't have the legal education or experience.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/1/2012 9:08:00 AM (view original):

Posted by jrd_x on 5/31/2012 5:26:00 PM (view original):
Traditionally, marriage was between people of the same race.  The court still applied the right to marry to interracial couples who, traditionally, hadn't had the right to marry.

You really don't understand the difference between two races and two sexes, do you?

Were your Barbies not anatomically correct?

Why does the difference matter?

Both are groups that were traditionally excluded from marriage. Then some states started allowing them to marry while others continued to ban it. Then the bans were challenged in court. The challenges lost in some courts but won in others. When or if the Supreme Court hears Perry, the anology will come full circle.