Forum Thread

Supreme Court--Which Case--Why Not Both?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 53 1 2 3 4 Next
  • Democrat
    Meridian, MS
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The Supreme Court is about to take up the issue of marriage equality, and I believe that is indeed a necessity since a handful of states currently support and legitimize gay marriage, but the others do not. With polls now saying that a majority of responders do in fact support gay marriage, the question that so boldly presents itself, at least to me, is why hasn't this issue just been brought up and voted on by the other states? My opinion is that the polling may not be a true picture of the total population's outlook. This should be a very interesting case. Maybe our polling methods and strategies need to be amended.

    The other case is NOT a case in itself, at least not yet, but I believe it should be. And that topic is our gun laws. Polling again clearly shows the strong majority wants 100% registration, a limitation on the size of ammunition clips, and a restriction on who can posses semi and fully automatic weapons. It sure seems to me that the Supreme Court is best suited to make the best choice for a nation-wide gun law, which is what the country needs. We don't need to have just a few states where the laws differ, and if someone wants to avoid the laws of one state, they can simply travel to one of the states who's laws fit their desires. Is this another instance that tells us our polling process is partially at fault?

    It just seems to me that if the Court is going to handle one of these issues, they should handle them both.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I am cautiously looking forward to hearing the arguments when they are released to the public tomorrow because it will give an early look into what the justices are thinking with regards to this issue. This is one of those cases that can either be a sea change that throws out DOMA and Prop 8, or we could get something the exact opposite of that and continue the sanctioned discrimination that we currently put our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters through. As much of a sea change in public opinion we have seen in recent years, we have to remind ourselves that there are currently 32 states that have Constitutional Amendments banning same sex marriage.

    What I hope the court does is something as dramatic as what it did in Brown vs. Board of Education, where the Warren court voted 9-0 to end the practice of racial segregation in schools throughout the 17 southern states. Mr. Warren spent countless hours persuading the courts more conservative justices that it was the right and moral thing to do. That one opinion erased nearly two hundred years of racial segregation in our educational system. I can only hope and pray that Mr. Roberts has that type of backbone, but the pessimist in me worries that Mr. Roberts is going to put himself on the wrong side of history.

    With regards to the gun control debate. As much as I'd like to believe the the court will wade in on this issue, they have already spoken on this in two previous cases back in 2008 and 2010 and I just don't see them wading into it anytime in the near future. Our best hope in that regard is Congress, but I have to admit I just don't see any meaningful action coming from them anytime soon. The gun lobby is way too powerful of a voice in Congress and they will fight tooth and nail to prevent any reasonable legislation from passing. The ONLY thing that can change this is us, the people, but we've become far to apathetic when it comes to actively engaging in this beautiful experiment called democracy. If only the population spent as much time engaging in the general welfare of the country as they did watching American Idol and Dancing With The Stars.
  • Democrat
    Meridian, MS
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Great post jared, and my comment to you is regarding your statement on the Supreme Court's likely aversion to the gun control issue. I certainly agree with your statement that Congress just cannot and will not muster the kahoonas to pass anything significant, but I must restate my argument about the NEED to do so, because of the great disparity across our nation in these laws and their interpretations. I say ALL we need is one uniform totally inclusive national law, in order to avoid confusion, cheating, and discrepancy in interpretations, that obviously exists without total uniformity of laws.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I agree with you one thousand percent. It's just common sense!! I just wish that our Congress listened to us instead of worrying about what NRA ranking they will have during the next election.
  • Democrat
    Meridian, MS
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Let me express my biggest fear on the marriage thing. What if the Court gives its ok for just California, or just California AND those states that currently allow civil unions, but not the rest of the country? That would pretty much leave it as it is now, in that there would only be a handful of states that would allow gay marriage. What would happen when the people that moved there to get married, and then moved back to their homes/jobs, how would that mess all be handled?
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You hit the nail on the head. That is my exact same worry, but there is a very good possibility that the court will rule in this way. I worry that they will give a very narrow opinion with regards to individual states and leave the greater issue for a later date.

    With regards to what would happen to those that moved to get married but then moved back to a state where it is unconstitutional--I just don't know what would happen. I assume that they would have to follow the law of whatever state they move back to. The only problem is if they are federal workers and DOMA is overturned or congress repeals it. That opens up a whole new can of worms.
  • Democrat
    Meridian, MS
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    What a mess this could end up being. If there is NOT a law encompassing the entire country, how could it ever be interpreted fairly in regards to Federal income tax? If a couple marry legally in say California and reside there, all should be just fine. They can file their state and Federal taxes as a married couple, and no feathers are ruffled. But what about another couple who moves to California for their marriage, and THEN moves back to Alabama afterwards? Can they file Federally as a married couple but not their state return, because their marriage is not recognized in Alabama? The Supreme Court has their hands full for sure.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I have no problem what consenting adults do with their private lives up to and including marraige, the problem I have is when certain groups demand that religious oranizations follow suit and allow marraige's to be sanctioned and performed by all religions.
  • Democrat
    Philly, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I think the Court granting cert on these two cases is strategic and a good omen for marriage rights supporters.

    The Prop 8 case is hinging on procedure, narrow precedent and standing but it is a review of a law enacted through popular referendum, IOW, “the will of the people”. The opportunity for SCOTUS to set-out a wide standard across government is limited but the opportunity to re-affirm the principles of our constitutional republic as paramount over the “will of the majority” is exciting.

    The DOMA review is of a restrictive law enacted by Congress and by reviewing it a wider staking out of federal Constitutional protection over discriminatory federal and state governmental action can be affirmed.

    I am looking forward to the oral arguments.

    Do you know who the Prop 8 case primary counsel is?

    Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olsen (whose wife died on 9-11 on flight 77) and David Boies; they argued the opposing sides in Bush v Gore . . . Interesting.

    michaels39301 Wrote:The other case is NOT a case in itself, at least not yet, but I believe it should be. And that topic is our gun laws. Polling again clearly shows the strong majority wants 100% registration, a limitation on the size of ammunition clips, and a restriction on who can posses semi and fully automatic weapons.
    To play devil's advocate here, I find it interesting that the “will of the majority” through actual popular ballot referendum (Prop 8) is to be set aside / invalidated and the states that have amended their constitutions to declare an official definition of marriage are to be shunned, but the “will of the majority” is to be held up as a worthy and unassailable directive for gun control, in direct opposition to a provision in the Bill of Rights . . . Wassupwiddat?

    michaels39301 Wrote:It sure seems to me that the Supreme Court is best suited to make the best choice for a nation-wide gun law, which is what the country needs.
    Huh? The Court can’t create law or offer their opinion without a case before them. Parties must appeal to the Court and plead to be heard and the Court decides if the issue is ripe for review (and the parties have standing to argue their claims).

    The Court can direct the issues before them by their choices in granting cert but the cases have had to make their way to the Court though the federal appeals and circuit levels (usually). The Court can exert some authority to direct the issues because after granting a petition for certiorari, (that argues the injury/issue the party wants decided), the Court can pretty much toss that out and craft their own question that they want the parties to brief and argue before the Court (as they did in DC v Heller).

    michaels39301 Wrote:We don't need to have just a few states where the laws differ, and if someone wants to avoid the laws of one state, they can simply travel to one of the states who's laws fit their desires.
    Well, for gun control, like other instances where a federal protection is applied to the states through the 14th Amendment, it takes time.
    This process for gun rights is even more peculiar because of the short span between Heller (invalidating the “militia right” / “state’s right” / ‘collective right” interpretations) and McDonald v Chicago (incorporating the 2nd Amendment against the states).

    The process of overturning the mass of gun control that has been affirmed for 70 years under the now invalid “militia right” / “state’s right” / ‘collective right” interpretations hasn’t had time to develop, thus there isn’t a sophisticated legal doctrine to apply to the states under McDonald. States and cities are still making and enforcing laws that are facially unconstitutional, not to mention all the current federal proposals that are most certainly unconstitutional.

    I think that if some of the current federal proposals are enacted the certain rapid appeals by gun rights groups will shove SCOTUS to act far more quickly than the process of the cases now in the pipeline, working themselves up to SCOTUS though the normal appeals process like Heller II.
  • Democrat
    Meridian, MS
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Wow Algernon, I am impressed. I didn't realize there was so much of an intricate web to traverse all these hearings, judgements, appeals, and finally SCOTUS, but you sure have the insight to all these workings. Thanks for giving me a heads-up, and obviously it will take some time for me to absorb it, but I sure welcome the advice you have put forth.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote: You hit the nail on the head. That is my exact same worry, but there is a very good possibility that the court will rule in this way. I worry that they will give a very narrow opinion with regards to individual states and leave the greater issue for a later date.

    With regards to what would happen to those that moved to get married but then moved back to a state where it is unconstitutional--I just don't know what would happen. I assume that they would have to follow the law of whatever state they move back to. The only problem is if they are federal workers and DOMA is overturned or congress repeals it. That opens up a whole new can of worms.
    I still find this a very strange country indeed; it is still actually 51 independend little countries; I guess even in Europe they are more in sinc.
    For instance I saw that in N. Dakota they are implementing a law forbidding abortion totally; sorry to say I guess the "church" is there the government. Weird country for sure. In Fl you do not need to wear a helmet on yr motorcycle; you get a ticket in an other state for that. etc.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I believe the Constitution spells it out in that it says that any Right that is not guaranteed in the Constitution is then left up to the individual States to decide, so if gay rights is included in the Federal law for Civil Rights,which will supercede the states right of marriage, so now will Religious organizations be in violation of that Right while at the same time invoking their First Amendment Rights of freedom of Religion ?
  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    If you're trying to read into what way the justices might rule, it's hard to tell from the transcript of the proceedings, which seem to me to be a bit rambling and all over the place.

    Full transcript of Supreme Court oral arguments on California Prop. 8 gay marriage case

    My guess is that they'll make a very narrow decision on Prop 8 for California only. Effectively it will be left as a states rights issue.

    And the vote will be 5-4.
  • Democrat
    Meridian, MS
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote: You hit the nail on the head. That is my exact same worry, but there is a very good possibility that the court will rule in this way. I worry that they will give a very narrow opinion with regards to individual states and leave the greater issue for a later date.

    With regards to what would happen to those that moved to get married but then moved back to a state where it is unconstitutional--I just don't know what would happen. I assume that they would have to follow the law of whatever state they move back to. The only problem is if they are federal workers and DOMA is overturned or congress repeals it. That opens up a whole new can of worms.
    I still find this a very strange country indeed; it is still actually 51 independend little countries; I guess even in Europe they are more in sinc.
    For instance I saw that in N. Dakota they are implementing a law forbidding abortion totally; sorry to say I guess the "church" is there the government. Weird country for sure. In Fl you do not need to wear a helmet on yr motorcycle; you get a ticket in an other state for that. etc.
    Hey Dutch, here in Ms. they even tried that approach, to ban all abortion clinics (there is only one remaining), but it failed too. It has failed elsewhere as well, and IF the N. Dakota legislature passes it, it will certainly be a first. BUT it is NOT the church that is "yea"ing or "nay"ing these abortion clinics, it is the individual state governments. Sure the churches, abortion-advocacy groups, hospitals, doctors, nurses, etc. all make noise and try to influence the state's legislators, but the churches themselves are not voting in these decisions. Just like with our national politicians, THEY are the ones responsible for their vote, not the individuals, groups, or PACS that are trying their best to influence the votes.

    And about Florida's archaic motorcycle helmet law. I say it takes an idiot or idiots to not follow what is accredited for saving how many hundreds of lives in other states. How about seatbelt laws in cars? Do they excuse the non-use of those too? Maybe the population density is getting too high for the politicians' desires. That still shouldn't give them the excuse.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: I have no problem what consenting adults do with their private lives up to and including marraige, the problem I have is when certain groups demand that religious oranizations follow suit and allow marraige's to be sanctioned and performed by all religions.
    Gays have never said they want recognition or santioning by the religous groups. That is a rightwing red herring.