6/26/2013 8:00 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 7:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 7:37:00 PM (view original):
Legally, no.

It has not gone through a legal appeal.
It actually did. The appeal was tossed a year later because the people bringing the appeal didnt have legal standing.

The decision was still reviewed by an appellate court.
The appeal was tossed.  Legally, it counts for nothing.

A subsequent appeal, with a different judge, could rule differently.

I highly doubt this is going away, nor has it been settled once and for all.
6/26/2013 8:23 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 8:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 7:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 7:37:00 PM (view original):
Legally, no.

It has not gone through a legal appeal.
It actually did. The appeal was tossed a year later because the people bringing the appeal didnt have legal standing.

The decision was still reviewed by an appellate court.
The appeal was tossed.  Legally, it counts for nothing.

A subsequent appeal, with a different judge, could rule differently.

I highly doubt this is going away, nor has it been settled once and for all.
But it still happened. It wasn't tossed on merit.
6/26/2013 8:30 PM
It terms of DOMA, this issue is settled. That's not coming back. And Ca will never vote in another SSM ban again.
6/26/2013 9:13 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 8:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 8:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 7:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 7:37:00 PM (view original):
Legally, no.

It has not gone through a legal appeal.
It actually did. The appeal was tossed a year later because the people bringing the appeal didnt have legal standing.

The decision was still reviewed by an appellate court.
The appeal was tossed.  Legally, it counts for nothing.

A subsequent appeal, with a different judge, could rule differently.

I highly doubt this is going away, nor has it been settled once and for all.
But it still happened. It wasn't tossed on merit.
You are a complete dumbass.

Do you know why they couldn't rule on merit?
6/26/2013 9:17 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 8:30:00 PM (view original):
It terms of DOMA, this issue is settled. That's not coming back. And Ca will never vote in another SSM ban again.
And Ca will never vote in another SSM ban again.

They might not have to, since the current case has not yet been played out to conclusion.  It's just been knocked back a few steps back to the Walker ruling.
6/26/2013 9:31 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 9:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 8:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 8:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 7:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 7:37:00 PM (view original):
Legally, no.

It has not gone through a legal appeal.
It actually did. The appeal was tossed a year later because the people bringing the appeal didnt have legal standing.

The decision was still reviewed by an appellate court.
The appeal was tossed.  Legally, it counts for nothing.

A subsequent appeal, with a different judge, could rule differently.

I highly doubt this is going away, nor has it been settled once and for all.
But it still happened. It wasn't tossed on merit.
You are a complete dumbass.

Do you know why they couldn't rule on merit?
Who is "they"?
6/26/2013 9:32 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 9:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 8:30:00 PM (view original):
It terms of DOMA, this issue is settled. That's not coming back. And Ca will never vote in another SSM ban again.
And Ca will never vote in another SSM ban again.

They might not have to, since the current case has not yet been played out to conclusion.  It's just been knocked back a few steps back to the Walker ruling.
The state would have to appeal. The governor and the attorney general refuse to do it.
6/26/2013 9:34 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 9:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 9:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 8:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 8:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 7:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 7:37:00 PM (view original):
Legally, no.

It has not gone through a legal appeal.
It actually did. The appeal was tossed a year later because the people bringing the appeal didnt have legal standing.

The decision was still reviewed by an appellate court.
The appeal was tossed.  Legally, it counts for nothing.

A subsequent appeal, with a different judge, could rule differently.

I highly doubt this is going away, nor has it been settled once and for all.
But it still happened. It wasn't tossed on merit.
You are a complete dumbass.

Do you know why they couldn't rule on merit?
Who is "they"?
SCOTUS.
6/26/2013 9:42 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 9:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 9:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 8:30:00 PM (view original):
It terms of DOMA, this issue is settled. That's not coming back. And Ca will never vote in another SSM ban again.
And Ca will never vote in another SSM ban again.

They might not have to, since the current case has not yet been played out to conclusion.  It's just been knocked back a few steps back to the Walker ruling.
The state would have to appeal. The governor and the attorney general refuse to do it.
Don't they have a responsibility to uphold the laws of the state and the will of the people?

FYI . . . according to CNN, Gov. Jerry Brown "said he interpreted the high court ruling as making Prop 8 unconstitutional and unenforceable".  Which shows that he's as big of a dumbass as you, since SCOTUS completely avoided the question of constitutionality.
6/26/2013 9:59 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 9:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 9:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 9:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 8:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 8:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 7:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 7:37:00 PM (view original):
Legally, no.

It has not gone through a legal appeal.
It actually did. The appeal was tossed a year later because the people bringing the appeal didnt have legal standing.

The decision was still reviewed by an appellate court.
The appeal was tossed.  Legally, it counts for nothing.

A subsequent appeal, with a different judge, could rule differently.

I highly doubt this is going away, nor has it been settled once and for all.
But it still happened. It wasn't tossed on merit.
You are a complete dumbass.

Do you know why they couldn't rule on merit?
Who is "they"?
SCOTUS.
Yes. But the appellate court did rule on merit.
6/26/2013 10:34 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 9:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 9:32:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 9:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 8:30:00 PM (view original):
It terms of DOMA, this issue is settled. That's not coming back. And Ca will never vote in another SSM ban again.
And Ca will never vote in another SSM ban again.

They might not have to, since the current case has not yet been played out to conclusion.  It's just been knocked back a few steps back to the Walker ruling.
The state would have to appeal. The governor and the attorney general refuse to do it.
Don't they have a responsibility to uphold the laws of the state and the will of the people?

FYI . . . according to CNN, Gov. Jerry Brown "said he interpreted the high court ruling as making Prop 8 unconstitutional and unenforceable".  Which shows that he's as big of a dumbass as you, since SCOTUS completely avoided the question of constitutionality.
The state defended the law when it was challenged. It is under no obligation to appeal.
6/27/2013 6:04 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 9:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 9:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 9:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 9:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 8:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 8:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 7:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 7:37:00 PM (view original):
Legally, no.

It has not gone through a legal appeal.
It actually did. The appeal was tossed a year later because the people bringing the appeal didnt have legal standing.

The decision was still reviewed by an appellate court.
The appeal was tossed.  Legally, it counts for nothing.

A subsequent appeal, with a different judge, could rule differently.

I highly doubt this is going away, nor has it been settled once and for all.
But it still happened. It wasn't tossed on merit.
You are a complete dumbass.

Do you know why they couldn't rule on merit?
Who is "they"?
SCOTUS.
Yes. But the appellate court did rule on merit.
Like a foul ball on an 0-2 pitch, it doesn't count, and it doesn't matter.
6/27/2013 7:55 AM
Are Govs and AGs lifetime appointees?
6/27/2013 9:06 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/27/2013 7:55:00 AM (view original):
Are Govs and AGs lifetime appointees?
I think the time to appeal a decision is limited.
6/27/2013 9:07 AM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/27/2013 6:04:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 9:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 9:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 9:31:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 9:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 8:23:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 8:00:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 7:42:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 7:37:00 PM (view original):
Legally, no.

It has not gone through a legal appeal.
It actually did. The appeal was tossed a year later because the people bringing the appeal didnt have legal standing.

The decision was still reviewed by an appellate court.
The appeal was tossed.  Legally, it counts for nothing.

A subsequent appeal, with a different judge, could rule differently.

I highly doubt this is going away, nor has it been settled once and for all.
But it still happened. It wasn't tossed on merit.
You are a complete dumbass.

Do you know why they couldn't rule on merit?
Who is "they"?
SCOTUS.
Yes. But the appellate court did rule on merit.
Like a foul ball on an 0-2 pitch, it doesn't count, and it doesn't matter.
But it still actually happened, even if it doesn't count anymore due to a procedural ruling from SCOTUS.
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.