Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Probably Tomorrow

Posted by labrea 7NYC (My Page) on
Thu, Nov 29, 12 at 13:49

Probably tomorrow the Supreme Court will announce which of the cases it will hear that may alter DOMA.
I am hoping it is Edie Windsors Case as are many others who see it as the best lever in overturning this travesty signed by Bill Clinton.

"In addition to its facts, Windsor also adds a new dimension to the DOMA jurisprudential landscape. Among the ten federal court rulings to invalidate DOMA thus far, Windsor is the first where a circuit court applied heightened scrutiny to the statute's sexual orientation-based classification. In the 2-1 ruling, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs followed the high court's traditional analysis, asking whether gay people have suffered a history of discrimination; whether sexual orientation is a distinguishing characteristic; whether sexual orientation relates to an individual's ability to contribute to society, and whether gay people are relatively politically powerless. All of these inquiries, he found, warrant intermediate scrutiny for classifications that, like DOMA's, distinguish between gay and non-gay people. "
I love the irony of Kathryn Lehman a Republican lesbian who helped write it is now fighting to help get it overturned.

Here is a link that might be useful: COURT


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

Thanks for the heads up, Joe. This will be very interesting. Let's hope this gets resolved once and for all.

I remember reading something about Kathryn Lehman (maybe something you posted?). It was so strange. How she could have helped with that whole thing is beyond understanding.


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

Equality under the law for all human beings. I want to see this happen in my lifetime.

Thanks, Joe.


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

Well The Supreme Court might review several points in different cases that have already declared certain portions of Doma unconstitutional.
It would address the constitutional questions but may not provide remedy for each case but open the channel for remedy without the Elephant of Doma blocking the way.
I doubt it would do a thing for anyone in The Bible States!


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

  • Posted by batya Israel north 8-9-10 (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 30, 12 at 7:43

Waiting, waiting, with bated breath.


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

As Am I!
We live in a Nation that not only tolerates inequality so many of it Republican candidates run on it as an IDEAL!


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

Is it over yet? I'm ready! They will find the laws disallowing what is a basic human right as unconstitutional and all the BS will have to end.


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

  • Posted by batya Israel north 8-9-10 (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 30, 12 at 9:49

Yeah we got candidates running on it as an ideal here too.

I have faith in the rule of law, eventually. Slavery, civil rights, hundreds of years of mistaken ideology, then the SCOTUS finally says, "No, this is wrong, get over it".

Hopefully yours, B


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

California's Prop 8 appeal is in the mix for today. Hopefully SCOTUS will refuse to hear the appeal.

Time to get rid of DOMA.


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

The court based on the cases or case they choose will decide on the constitutionality of DOMA it would not usurp the states rights!
This time round that would be another round of cases!
Edie Windsors case is based on inheritance & tax (Estate Law)
AS it stands "DOMA does not bar or invalidate any marriages but leaves states free to decide whether they will recognize same-sex marriage,"
What it does do is screw anyone out of Federal Benefits or in the Case of Edie Windsor imposed by making her pay $300,000 in federal Estate Taxes that a heterosexual legally married in NY would not have to pay.
DOMA is not the same a Constitutional Amendment that so many Republicans sought to have enacted.
DOMA codified Federal inequality & was passed with a large dollop of paranoia by both Dems & Reps fearing public opinion. Now that the sky didn't fall in the states that showed up what a joke THE DEFENSE angle was & public opinion has shifted a Court will finally decide on the legality of the law (rather than the facts or emotions involved in the cases!
Amazing the evolution's the democrats were capable of (what a freaking joke now all that left are the revenant Republicans!


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

From TOM GOLDSTEIN SCOTUS BLOG.

History
At their Conference today, the Justices will consider petitions raising federal constitutional issues related to same-sex marriage. These are the most significant cases these nine Justices have ever considered, and probably that they will ever decide.

I have never before seen cases that I believed would be discussed two hundred years from now. Bush v. Gore and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks. The government�s assertion of the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry, or to refuse to recognize such a marriage, is profound. So is the opposite claim that five Justices can read the federal Constitution to strip the people of the power to enact the laws governing such a foundational social institution.

The cases present a profound test of the Justices judgment. The plaintiffs claims are rooted in the fact that these laws rest on an irrational and invidious hatred, enshrined in law. On the other hand, that describes some moral judgments. The Constitution does not forbid every inequality, and the people must correct some injustices (even some grave ones) themselves, legislatively.

The striking feature of these cases not present in any others I have ever seen is that that they would have been decided by the Justices predecessors one way and would be decided by the Justices successors another way.

The painful but sometimes unspoken truth is that seminal Supreme Court rulings sometimes reflect the era in which they were decided. In 2012, it is ridiculous to believe that the government could ban inter-racial marriage. But that was the law in much of the country for most of its history. In fact, it was a serious argument, and there were a number of similar laws on the books, when the Court declared them unconstitutional in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. Society moved over the course of our history, and so did the Court's understanding of the Constitution.

Here, the argument that the Framers of the Constitution would have recognized constitutional rights related to same-sex marriage is silly. In fact, the claims of same-sex marriage advocates were hopeless in this Court both because of its conservativism but also because of social attitudes as recently as five years ago.

But the arc of history tilts towards equality and justice, and our society is rapidly but unevenly coming to the judgment that same-sex marriage is just and right. The claims presented by this case would just as inevitably prevail (probably by a wide margin) in the Supreme Court twenty years from now. By then, it will be broadly (if not uniformly) accepted that discrimination against homosexuals related to marriage is invidious and irrational. Our attitudes are shifting that fast.

Our country and societies around the world will read the Justices decision(s) not principally as a legal document but instead as a statement by a wise body about whether same-sex marriages are morally right or wrong. The issues are that profound and fraught; they in a sense seem to transcend "law." Given the inevitability of same-sex marriage, if the Court rules against those claiming a right to have such unions recognized, it will later be judged to be "on the wrong side of history."

But the verdict of history cannot decide the legal questions presented by these cases. The cases arrive today, in this moment, before our cultural transition has completed. In a sense, it is a shame that there is such pressure to hear the cases now; the judgment for the rest of the nation's history would certainly favor these claims. But if they do decide to grant review, the Justices cannot merely choose to embrace the past or the future. They will have to make a judgment now."


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

"We live in a Nation that not only tolerates inequality so many of it Republican candidates run on it as an IDEAL!"

And this is a real problem. We cannot allow private belief and personal moral issues to interfere with equality, with our legislation. All human beings deserve equal rights.


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

I hope the SCOTUS refuses to hear the Prop Case 8 and takes on DOMA. It's time...way past time.


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

Probably Monday...


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

Ah well I've been waiting all these years I can wait till Monday for the black robes to do their dance!


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

Looks like Friday now tsk tsk tsk this will be a tough one!


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

Argh, I wanted an answer re Prop 8 today!


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

Ugh, frustratingly slow process...


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

Yes... for something that shouldn't NEED to be processed! Equality should be a given!


 o
RE: Probably Tomorrow

They certainly are dragging their feet. This is crazy.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here