There are cases that might fit this description, where the unconstitutionality of a law is obvious. These two cases were not this type of case. DOMA Section 3 and Prop 8 were both very close cases. It was a clear refusal of duty to not defend these laws by the executive. Every year, the executive of state and federal governments defend laws they disagree with because that's part of the job they sign up for. It really is that simple. Their refusal to do their job led to exactly the opposite of a allowing the courts to decide on the merits (in the Prop 8 case, the majority agreed there was no dispute and hence no basis for the court to get involved; whereas in the DOMA case, a majority said they could decide the merits because Congress could defend the law).
And go ahead and bust on Scalia, but in yesterday's rulings he was consistent in his position that since the executives chose not defend the respective laws, there was no dispute and no case.
DOMA - struck down
Re: DOMA - struck down
This; for a start, what on earth does it even mean?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: DOMA - struck down
So our legislature can pass a law but it must be constitutional. The Constitution is the over-riding law of the land and ensures that basic rights are protected. One of those rights is that people are entitled to equal protection under the laws (i.e., should be treated the same as others). This was one of the basic principles at stake in the merits of the two gay marriage cases.
The other principle was the right of each of the 50 state governments to define marriage -- our so-called federalism or shared sovereignty -- that state governments have certain sovereign rights reserved to them and the federal government can't butt in.
There were two gay marriage cases. One was based on a federal law (Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA) that said for purposes of federal law, marriage means the marriage of man and woman only, even if a state says gay marriage is legal. (And about 12 or the 50 states have such laws now). This means that people in gay marriage don't get spousal rights, such as tax-free healthcare under their spouse's health plan, or Social Security spousal benefits, etc. The other case was based on a state law called Proposition 8 voted on by the people of California that said marriage can only be a man and woman, basically outlawing gay marriage.
Getting to your question, my beef is with the President (Obama) and the California Governor who did not defend their laws. In our parlance, the President and the governor of a state are the head of the "executive branch" which oversees and implements duly enacted laws. The laws with respect to gay marriage, which were duly enacted, were attacked as a violation of equal protection under the Constitution. The President and Governor, as part of their duties and according to their oath, defend all of the laws, even those they disagree with. This happens all of the time. However, in these two cases, both the President and the Governor failed in their duty to do so. The result in the California case was that there was no disagreement between the "parties to the litigation" so the Court dismissed the case since there was no dispute. In the federal case, Congress (the federal legislature) stepped in and defended the constitutionality of DOMA, but four of the 9 justices did not believe there was a dispute because the president agreed with those seeking to overturn DOMA.
Thus, the failure of the executive in each of the cases to defend their laws almost meant that the issues were not really resolved. For example, in the California case, a new governor could say that Proposition 8 is constitutional and seek to enforce it again in the future. Then the case would be back in court for ultimate decision. We almost ended up with the same result in the federal law case, but that was avoided with respect to the federal law only because one of 9 judges joined the other four judges to find there was enough of a dispute since the Obama Administration refused equal treatment of gay marriage even while espousing the unconstitutionality of that law.
The other principle was the right of each of the 50 state governments to define marriage -- our so-called federalism or shared sovereignty -- that state governments have certain sovereign rights reserved to them and the federal government can't butt in.
There were two gay marriage cases. One was based on a federal law (Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA) that said for purposes of federal law, marriage means the marriage of man and woman only, even if a state says gay marriage is legal. (And about 12 or the 50 states have such laws now). This means that people in gay marriage don't get spousal rights, such as tax-free healthcare under their spouse's health plan, or Social Security spousal benefits, etc. The other case was based on a state law called Proposition 8 voted on by the people of California that said marriage can only be a man and woman, basically outlawing gay marriage.
Getting to your question, my beef is with the President (Obama) and the California Governor who did not defend their laws. In our parlance, the President and the governor of a state are the head of the "executive branch" which oversees and implements duly enacted laws. The laws with respect to gay marriage, which were duly enacted, were attacked as a violation of equal protection under the Constitution. The President and Governor, as part of their duties and according to their oath, defend all of the laws, even those they disagree with. This happens all of the time. However, in these two cases, both the President and the Governor failed in their duty to do so. The result in the California case was that there was no disagreement between the "parties to the litigation" so the Court dismissed the case since there was no dispute. In the federal case, Congress (the federal legislature) stepped in and defended the constitutionality of DOMA, but four of the 9 justices did not believe there was a dispute because the president agreed with those seeking to overturn DOMA.
Thus, the failure of the executive in each of the cases to defend their laws almost meant that the issues were not really resolved. For example, in the California case, a new governor could say that Proposition 8 is constitutional and seek to enforce it again in the future. Then the case would be back in court for ultimate decision. We almost ended up with the same result in the federal law case, but that was avoided with respect to the federal law only because one of 9 judges joined the other four judges to find there was enough of a dispute since the Obama Administration refused equal treatment of gay marriage even while espousing the unconstitutionality of that law.
Re: DOMA - struck down
Thanks very much L-R, that's kind of you to take the trouble.
Your system is insane, but still it makes some sort of sense after a fashion, when explained.
Your system is insane, but still it makes some sort of sense after a fashion, when explained.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: DOMA - struck down
Yes well, you may very well think so, but you'll start singing a different tune after we start sinking your ships...Your system is insane,
Re: DOMA - struck down
The court proved that Obama was right in refusing to support an unconstitutional law.
The California constitution does not have the kind of heirarchial structure the federal const. does where there is a much shorter explication of general principles in the constitution itself and then a very large body of laws which must be reconciled with it. The Calif. constitution is a huge unwieldy document which makes it much more likely that parts of it will be conflicting with others. The US constitution is about 6 pages while the Calif. version is roughly 110 pages. Unless you have read the whole thing I don't think you can claim that they aren't right in saying the amendment was in conflict with more central provisions.
yrs,
rubato
The California constitution does not have the kind of heirarchial structure the federal const. does where there is a much shorter explication of general principles in the constitution itself and then a very large body of laws which must be reconciled with it. The Calif. constitution is a huge unwieldy document which makes it much more likely that parts of it will be conflicting with others. The US constitution is about 6 pages while the Calif. version is roughly 110 pages. Unless you have read the whole thing I don't think you can claim that they aren't right in saying the amendment was in conflict with more central provisions.
yrs,
rubato
Re: DOMA - struck down
Oh good Lord, a civics lesson from rubato...
What next?
Instructions on how to be celibate from Nina Hartley?
What next?
Instructions on how to be celibate from Nina Hartley?
Last edited by Lord Jim on Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: DOMA - struck down
Actually, the SCOTUS accepted that there was a dispute only because Obama supported in practice what he said was an unconstitutional law. Just ask any of the married gay people who have been paying higher (or lower) taxes as single taxpayers and haven't been able to collect spousal Social Security benefits.
As for the California case, it is far from clear what the result is. In contrast, it would be clear if Gerry Brown had done his job as governor and directed his Attorney General to defend the law. Now there is uncertainty. Gerry Brown may decide that he won't enforce the law on the belief that it is unconstitutional, but he may get sued over this; and the next governor (or the next after that) could take the opposite position and decide to enforce the law. The SCOTUS decided that there is no dispute because the Governor agrees with the opponents of Prop 8, and thus the court has no right to decide the case (a court needing an actual conflict to have jurisdiction since our courts don't issue advisory opinions). This nullified the 9th Circuit Appeals Court decision, but left the district court decision that the law violated equal protection. However, that district court decision only applies to the parties in that case, not the entire state. Thus, the result is less than what it seems. By the time it sorts out, my guess is there will be at least 50% plus 1 needed to vote out Prop 8 by democratic means.
As for the California case, it is far from clear what the result is. In contrast, it would be clear if Gerry Brown had done his job as governor and directed his Attorney General to defend the law. Now there is uncertainty. Gerry Brown may decide that he won't enforce the law on the belief that it is unconstitutional, but he may get sued over this; and the next governor (or the next after that) could take the opposite position and decide to enforce the law. The SCOTUS decided that there is no dispute because the Governor agrees with the opponents of Prop 8, and thus the court has no right to decide the case (a court needing an actual conflict to have jurisdiction since our courts don't issue advisory opinions). This nullified the 9th Circuit Appeals Court decision, but left the district court decision that the law violated equal protection. However, that district court decision only applies to the parties in that case, not the entire state. Thus, the result is less than what it seems. By the time it sorts out, my guess is there will be at least 50% plus 1 needed to vote out Prop 8 by democratic means.
Re: DOMA - struck down
Lord Jim wrote:Oh good Lord, a civics lesson from rubato...
What next?
Instructions on how to celibate from Nina Hartley? Wilt Chamberlain?
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: DOMA - struck down
Long Run wrote:Actually, the SCOTUS accepted that there was a dispute only because Obama supported in practice what he said was an unconstitutional law. Just ask any of the married gay people who have been paying higher (or lower) taxes as single taxpayers and haven't been able to collect spousal Social Security benefits.
As for the California case, it is far from clear what the result is. In contrast, it would be clear if Gerry Brown had done his job as governor and directed his Attorney General to defend the law. Now there is uncertainty. Gerry Brown may decide that he won't enforce the law on the belief that it is unconstitutional, but he may get sued over this; and the next governor (or the next after that) could take the opposite position and decide to enforce the law. The SCOTUS decided that there is no dispute because the Governor agrees with the opponents of Prop 8, and thus the court has no right to decide the case (a court needing an actual conflict to have jurisdiction since our courts don't issue advisory opinions). This nullified the 9th Circuit Appeals Court decision, but left the district court decision that the law violated equal protection. However, that district court decision only applies to the parties in that case, not the entire state. Thus, the result is less than what it seems. By the time it sorts out, my guess is there will be at least 50% plus 1 needed to vote out Prop 8 by democratic means.
It is only his job to defend it if it does not conflict with more central principles. Apparently you cannot show that he is wrong.
And since he graduated from Yale law school and successfully argued cases before the Calif. supreme court I suspect he is very knowledgeable in Calif law.
The SCOTUS did NOT say "... there is no dispute because the Governor agrees with the opponents of Prop 8... " it said that those who did bring the suit did not have standing.
yrs,
rubato
Re: DOMA - struck down
The President has a constitutional duty to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1).
The President has a constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 3).
Obama's treatment of DOMA scrupulously fulfilled both of those duties. He continued to enforce DOMA, even though he thought it unconstitutional, which fulfilled his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And he declined to defend in court a law which he concluded was unconstitutional, which fulfilled his duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Obama walked that constitutional tightrope perfectly.
The President has a constitutional duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" (U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 3).
Obama's treatment of DOMA scrupulously fulfilled both of those duties. He continued to enforce DOMA, even though he thought it unconstitutional, which fulfilled his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. And he declined to defend in court a law which he concluded was unconstitutional, which fulfilled his duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
Obama walked that constitutional tightrope perfectly.
Reason is valuable only when it performs against the wordless physical background of the universe.
Re: DOMA - struck down
I think Nina might be the one person who could give Wilt a run for his money in the boudoir record department......dales wrote:Lord Jim wrote:Oh good Lord, a civics lesson from rubato...
What next?
Instructions on how to celibate from Nina Hartley? Wilt Chamberlain?
She's been a working porno actress for 32 years....
Re: DOMA - struck down
No, Jim, I wasn't thinking quantity as I was thinking the sex of the participant unless rube is transgender. 
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: DOMA - struck down
The constitutional issues are not complex, and have nothing whatsoever to do with some non-existent Federal right of pervert couples to enter into legally cognizable relationships. The definition of marriage is up to the States; the Feds can't ignore or dispute the States' laws or actions in this regard.
And as I have said on numerous occasions, the un-addressed side issue - whether one state must recognize marriages that are created and valid in another state - remains somewhat up in the air. But I'm voting for the "full faith & credit" clause myself. (Article IV, Section 1). Again, not a close question at all.
And as I have said on numerous occasions, the un-addressed side issue - whether one state must recognize marriages that are created and valid in another state - remains somewhat up in the air. But I'm voting for the "full faith & credit" clause myself. (Article IV, Section 1). Again, not a close question at all.
Re: DOMA - struck down
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: DOMA - struck down
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had been expected to wait 25 days before lifting the ban - in case the losing side wanted to ask for the case to be heard again.
But judges at the appeals court decided to act on Friday, saying: "The stay in the above matter is dissolved effective immediately."
Shortly afterwards, one of the two same-sex couples whose case led to the Supreme Court's Wednesday decision got married at San Francisco's town hall.
The wedding of Kris Perry, 48, and Sandy Stier, 50, was officiated by California's Attorney General Kamala Harris.
He declared them "spouse and spouse", but during their vows they took each other as a "lawfully wedded wife", the Associated Press news agency reports.
"They have waited and fought for this moment. Today their wait is finally over," Mr Harris said.
"This is really a great day," said Cindy Stier.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: DOMA - struck down
It is quite amusing to see the usual suspects acting just as several conservative pundits on the Sunday morning talk shows and claiming that the issues raised by these cases are not settled. They are. You can clap your hands as much as you want, but this particular Tinkerbell is staying dead.
One almost felt sorry for Ralph Reed, blustering in his impotence that these rulings would motivate conservatives in future elections, and other equally deluded nutbars who were dreaming of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Newsflash, folks, you seem to have forgotten what opposing same-sex marriage was all about. It had nothing to do with the actual issue, and everything to do with finding something that would unite Republicans and divide Democrats. These poor idiots seem to have lost sight of that fact, in light of the new political reality where SSM is something that now unites Democrats and divides Republicans.
I am sure we will be hearing a lot of Dems developing new found respect for Bush Jr's "bring it on" quote if Republicans are suicidal enough to try making opposition to SSM their rallying cry ever again.
One almost felt sorry for Ralph Reed, blustering in his impotence that these rulings would motivate conservatives in future elections, and other equally deluded nutbars who were dreaming of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Newsflash, folks, you seem to have forgotten what opposing same-sex marriage was all about. It had nothing to do with the actual issue, and everything to do with finding something that would unite Republicans and divide Democrats. These poor idiots seem to have lost sight of that fact, in light of the new political reality where SSM is something that now unites Democrats and divides Republicans.
I am sure we will be hearing a lot of Dems developing new found respect for Bush Jr's "bring it on" quote if Republicans are suicidal enough to try making opposition to SSM their rallying cry ever again.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: DOMA - struck down
Geezus, Kamala Harris is a woman....The wedding of Kris Perry, 48, and Sandy Stier, 50, was officiated by California's Attorney General Kamala Harris.
He declared them "spouse and spouse", but during their vows they took each other as a "lawfully wedded wife", the Associated Press news agency reports.
Another red letter day for accuracy in reporting....
Re: DOMA - struck down
Serves her right for having a stupid name then. 
A Bulgarian student who is married to an American has become the first gay man to have his application for a green card granted, says their lawyer.
The breakthrough is seen as proof of US visa policies quickly adapting to last week's historic Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage.
Traian Popov, who wed Julian Marsh in New York, may now apply for immigration benefits and a permanent resident visa.
But their union is still not legal in the state of Florida, where they live.
Last week the Supreme Court threw out a law banning gay couples from receiving benefits available to other couples.
The justices ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act discriminated against same-sex couples.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: DOMA - struck down
First, you should find something useful to do with your Sunday mornings.It is quite amusing to see the usual suspects acting just as several conservative pundits on the Sunday morning talk shows and claiming that the issues raised by these cases are not settled. They are. You can clap your hands as much as you want, but this particular Tinkerbell is staying dead.
Second, pragmatically, you are right, this is becoming a non-issue in most places in the U.S. and elsewhere, and is hardly an issue to rely on if the R's are seeking to inspire the troops. However, as noted above, the issue is not decided. While Jerry Brown can choose not to enforce Prop 8, it can arise to again become California law either through litigation or a change in governor (though voters seem ready to over-turn it). And while the DOMA section allowing federal benefit equivalence was decided, the other portions of DOMA were not at issue, mainly the requirement that a state without SSM does not have to honor a SSM from another state. A bit of work left to be done.