By all means, please expound.
And *whatever *may those be?
The rights in question are Constitutional, and the effects are quite practical. Where is morality part of it?
People may want to review what the question before the court is.
That is the question which will be answered (or ducked), unless this is an exceptional decision by the court.
After listening to the arguments twice I think Prop 8 is dead, The question I have is how narrowly the ruling will apply and how they will limit the scope.
If I had to guess I would hazard to guess that they will say that because of civil unions/adoption laws in California demonstrate that the claimed states interest is false and that it was purely a punitive law as in Romer v Evens.
Thus no SSM in all 50 states, just SSM in states which legislated de facto SSM by “any other name” doctrine.
But there may be a bit of confirmation bias in my assessment.
Wrong. The Girandoni rifle was invented in 1779. It had a 20 round magazine (22 rounds total) that fed rounds from the rear of the rifle and was in service with the Austrian army in 1780. just sayin’
I think both cases are going to be decided in favor of equality, with Roberts writing the majority opinion.
I’m not sure that signifies, since the law itself was directly passed by the voters. As to the standing issue, injury is only required for a plaintiff to assert standing.
To be fair Smapti did say “firearm” which the Girandoni is not. The internet vs. the printing press would have probably been a better example. The “freedom of the press” or the right to publish is not restricted to just the “press” despite the fact it is called out by name in the 1st.
DOMA is dead 6-3.
Prop 8 is dead 5-4 or 6-3 but SSM is reinstated in CA and doesn’t apply to the rest of the States even in the 9th.
Standing is not an issue in either.
No. That’s “your” interpretation of what you think Scalia meant to say. “Takes no position” means he’s not personally taking a position on that particular issue. Considering all of the questions being asked by the Justices, I think it’s obvious that the Justices have discussed this particular issue in closed chambers prior to this hearing and Scalia and the other Justices have been at odds over it. Scalia was asking the lawyers to clarify their positions.
It’s also an airgun with a dodgy reservoir. Just sayin’.
I wish someone would ask the question, “So if Scienticians were able to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that same sex couples raise healthy, well-adjusted children at exactly the same rate as heterosexual couples, then preventing SSM would not have any state interest, correct? What if studies actually showed heterosexual couples had a higher rate of fucked up children, then what?? Suppose science found something else, such as couples where there is more than a foot difference in height increased the odds of fucking up your children, would that then make a legitimate state interest to outlaw such unions? Please, tell me why you are basing your whole argument on a temple of lies?”
The problem with that argument is that the “rational” in rational basis doesn’t mean the legislation must be rational; just rationally related to the interest. The legislature is free to ignore prevailing evidence just as long as there is some to support its purpose.
Since Prop 8 was passed, the people of California elected Kamala Harris to represent them as Attorney General, and she refuses to defend Prop 8 against constitutional attacks. Why do the voters in 2008 trump the voters in 2010? Note: my point is more about the emptiness of the “what about the right of the people to govern themselves and protection from the tyranny of the minority (Supreme Court Justices)” rhetoric than a determination on the standing issue.
Right. And what legally cognizable injury do the plaintiff’s have in this case? I had never really heard Bricker praise finding standing for taxpayers or people who wish to sue to have laws enforced (like some environmental group suing the EPA on behalf of publicly owned lands.)
Personally, I’d be surprised if yesterday’s case was bounced on a standing issue, but it would be an interesting legal opinion.
The referrence was to the 2nd Amendment and the 2nd doesn’t mention the word “firearms”.
Since this is the law we’re talking about, the actual wording, standing, and previous rulings matter. Several Justices used the limited time allotted for this final public hearing to discuss standing. I take that to mean that the Justices have questions AMONG THEMSELVES as to whether the SCOTUS should be hearing this case.
The State of California didn’t defend Prop 8 but the State of California didn’t file suit against it, on any grounds, either. The Govenor may say that a legal and lawful ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment is unconstitutional but it’s obvious that the governor didn’t back up his opinion with legal action.
The plaintiffs in the Prop 8 case (Perry et al.) are the gay people who couldn’t get married (and the City of San Francisco). The plaintiff in the DOMA case is Edith Windsor, who had a same-sex marriage in Canada but was required to pay federal estate taxes because her marriage was not recognized.
Are you under the impression that the State of California and/or the federal government are the plaintiff?
[QUOTE=Wikipedia]
While the detachable air reservoir was capable of around 30 shots it took nearly 1500 strokes of a hand pump to fill those reservoirs.
[/QUOTE]
I hereby amend my original statement to say that I am fully OK with the type of people who frequent NRA rallies carrying around weapons that take 1500 strokes of a hand pump to discharge a single magazine.
Not nearly as entertaining as the wailing and gnashing of teeth on this MB about him!
Duly elected representatives are presumed to express the will of the majority – except when the majority has already spoken specifically on a particular issue. In that case, the specific overrules the general.
I have no idea what “plaintiffs” you’re talking about.
No, but the post you were responding to did, but if you have any case law that shows that laws restricting firearm ownership have been invalidated due to existing technology in other types of projectile weapons you may have a point.
If you are going to stick to the “it must have existed at the time” argument is the government free to restrict the publishing of ideas on the internet or via laser printer? Should people be required to use a physical printing press to print to publish ideas?
But if you have any case law to show that the reason the 2nd applies to repeating cartridge firearms is related to the existence of a repeating air rifle I will gladly accept a cite.
Do you believe that is why Scalia repeatedly asked about “when” SSM had become illegal? Would he have been looking for clarification as relating to Romer v. Evans?