Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I think the court will continue with this principle and not decide one way or the other on gay marriage. I think they'll punt back to the states and say each state gets to decide what marriage is or is not which is in line with what they said in the majority opinion on DOMA.
Unless the 6th Circuit reverses itself en banc, the odds of the Supreme Court now taking up gay marriage is about 100%.
And what you've described isn't "punting" or avoiding - what you've described would require the Supreme Court taking the case and upholding the 6th Circuit ruling while overturning the rulings of the 4th, 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuits.
It's called the avoidance principle. It's been around as long as the Supreme Court has, and it's widely considered a wise doctrine.
The court doesn't get involved unless there is a REALLY good reason to, the biggest reason being a Circuit split - meaning because of divergent Circuit Court opinions, a federal law or an interpretation of the Constitution is being applied differently in different parts of the nation.
It also directs the Court to avoid settling cases on constitutional grounds if at all possible - instead the Court should use statutory interpretations or defer to the Democratic branches if possible (not possible for this issue).
It doesn't work here though. This is a Constitutional issue. The Supreme Court can not leave it up to the states because of the 14th amendment. It's unconstitutional for a citizen in Ohio to get government benefits while a citizen in Montana can not. (just making a couple states up). They punted knowing full well that they are going to have to rule on this.
This wasn't the first ruling that went against gay marriage.
It doesn't work here though. This is a Constitutional issue.
That's why I said that avoiding a Constitutional ruling is "not possible for this issue" if they take up the case.
Quote:
The Supreme Court can not leave it up to the states because of the 14th amendment. It's unconstitutional for a citizen in Ohio to get government benefits while a citizen in Montana can not. (just making a couple states up).
Well, that's the Constitutional issue. It's your opinion (and mine). However, it's not the opinion of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (at least currently).
Quote:
They punted knowing full well that they are going to have to rule on this.
It wasn't a foregone conclusion that they would have to rule on the issue. If all the Circuit courts came to the same conclusion, then there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to step in (although they still could have if a majority really, really, really thought that all of the 12 Circuit Courts got it wrong).
Quote:
This wasn't the first ruling that went against gay marriage.
It takes either some serious gonads or some serious stupidity (or both) to look at the rulings of every other such case and simply decide you are right and they are not. Shameful and completely against precedent, but only a minor setback in the grand scheme of things.
A minor setback you say ? With a lower court split, the SC might just have to reverse its cowardly refusal to hear the issue.
[quote=Lunar Delta;37176270]Stupid. Are you saying homosexual people should force themselves to marry people they are unattracted to or just sit down and shut up? If the situation was reversed, could you force yourself to marry a person of the same sex? Would you think this is OK?
Suspected by who or what qualified mental or physical health organizations in this day and age? You do understand that homosexual behavior is incredibly common throughout the entire animal kingdom, right?[/quote]
Rape is also common in the entire animal kingdom. What's your point?
That's why I said that avoiding a Constitutional ruling is "not possible for this issue" if they take up the case.
They are going to have to take it.
Quote:
Well, that's the Constitutional issue. It's your opinion (and mine). However, it's not the opinion of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (at least currently).
I'll have to read it.
Quote:
It wasn't a foregone conclusion that they would have to rule on the issue. If all the Circuit courts came to the same conclusion, then there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to step in (although they still could have if a majority really, really, really thought that all of the 12 Circuit Courts got it wrong).
From what I'm reading the court ruled that they can not over ride previous Supreme Court decisions. I agree with that. It is the Supreme Court that has to either uphold or over ride this decision.
Sutton argued that appellate judges' hands are tied by a one-sentence Supreme Court ruling from 1972, which "upheld the right of the people of a state to define marriage as they see it."
Rape is also common in the entire animal kingdom. What's your point?
What is YOUR point? That a violent non-consensual act of violation committed against a sentient being is somehow equivalent to a completely harmless variation in sexual preference?
SCOTUS should have taken this already. I hope they take it before Ginsberg dies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
