I answered his question already. But I guess that doesn’t matter, does it?
I know it might seem odd to you but the Texas Supreme Court was restricted to ruling only on the matter brought before them at that time. And that matter was a stay issued by a lower court. This was not the time and place to throw the entire case out.
The stay issued by the trail court and upheld by the appeals court prevented Harris County from spending money to provide health insurance to the same sex spouses of county employees on the same terms that the county was spending money to provide health insurance to opposite sex spouses of county employees.
The Texas Supreme Court ruled to overturn the stay issue by the trial court. And the Texas Supreme Court sent the whole case back to the trial court with a big reminder to keep the US Supreme Court decisions in *Windsor *and *Obergefell *in mind in dealing with the case.
You are either confused or dishonest.
**1) ** You stuck your head into this thread to make yet another partisan snipe, this time claiming that your state has become infested with liberals fleeing economic troubles in California. Running coach presented two articles as a counterpoint to your unsubstantiated claim. Nowhere in this thread have you even responded to running coach, let alone answer his challenge.
If you have time to waste insulting people in this thread, surely you have time to offer a rebuttle to this challenge. Or maybe acknowledge that your comment was just a flippant remark not based on actual facts?
**2) **The OP, fervor, challenged you directly to say whether or not you believe he should be entitled to coverage under his husband’s insurance. Just in case you somehow failed to comprehend it the previous four times it was presented to you, here it is again:
Your response in post 63 was to call him a hysteric, offer a simplified interpretation of the court’s remarks (not your opinion regarding his challenge to you), and tell him to grow up.
Your response in post 102 was to say you “don’t give a damn” where he gets his insurance (again, not your opinion on whether he is even entitled to the same coverage as a straight married person).
In both posts you dodged the actual challenge.
If you can’t take that challenge, just say “I’m sorry, I would rather not say whether I believe you are entitled to coverage under your husband’s insurance the same as other married couples.”
That was his head!?
The Texas Supreme Court was not, in fact, able to simply rule that same-sex marriage was legal in Texas and that therefore the case should be decided that way and ended – if that’s what’s meant by “the right decision.” The case came to the Texas Supreme Court on an interlocutory appeal. The question they were deciding was a limited one. They were NOT hearing a full appeal from a full trial decision.
They were hearing an appeal of a lower court decision that ordered the mayor to NOT use public money to pay for same-sex benefits. They sent that decision back, saying it was wrongly reached.
Do you believe they should have upheld that decision? What, specifically, do you believe they should have done? And if the answer to that is, “They should have simply rule that same-sex marriage was legal in Texas and that therefore the case should be decided that way and ended,” then my next question is: why do you think they had the legal power to do that at this stage of the proceedings?
Neither.
And I answered that question directly. The fact that you don’t like my answer is meaningless.
I must have missed where you said you did or didn’t believe he should be entitled to coverage under his husbands insurance same as other couples.
Could you please clarify which it is?
Or are you refusing his challenge?
It’s OK to refuse a challenge you know. Just say so.
Now I remember why Civil Procedure was something I sucked at in Law School. You learn by doing not reading.
So you are saying they should have upheld the stay and said “sure, deny same sex married couples benefits until final decision?” They were worried about the political backlash of doing that?
No.
It is a ridiculous arrangement if a state supreme court has its hands so tied that it cannot rule on mutually incompatible laws. It is ridiculous, that a state supreme court has to remand it back to a lower court to “correct” the lower court’s ruling. What is this? High school?
I DO believe in judicial activism. I do not believe judicial activism is the same thing as “legislating from the bench”. Legislating from the bench would be writing laws. Pointing out that two ideas are incompatible and deciding which one makes best sense in view of the entirety of what is law is precisely what I think a supreme court should do.
I do not know if anyone will actually suffer from this silly procedure. But if anyone actually suffers, then shame on Texas.
I’ll try to read responses, but I may be gone for the next few weeks.
Gee, I wasn’t aware that everything revolves around my opinion.
So, in turn, let me ask a question for clarification. I very clearly said:
What part of that was so difficult to understand? Whether I think he should or shouldn’t is meaningless. I. Don’t. Care.
Can you name any state in the United States in which you believe the state supreme court would NOT have its “hands tied” in a similar manner?
In other words, you seem to think Texas’ arrangement is “ridiculous.” Which states do you recommend Texas should emulate to get rid of its ridiculousness?
Then just quit returning to the the thread, dufus. You really strongly remind me of some of the emotional support/special ed kids I used to teach. They’d get escalated and irrational over something, argue pointlessly, escalate themselves further, and finally end up screaming “I don’t care!” over and over. Really, if you don’t return to the thread, nobody will think less of you. Nobody could.
That would seem to imply that you’ve first answered my question. But OK. I’ll go first if it makes you happy.
There’s not really anything unclear in you retort, per se. It seems quite clear that you are unwilling to accept fervour’s challenge to state whether or not you believe he should be entitled to coverage under his husband’s insurance, just as a spouse in an opposite-sex marriage is. Since he didn’t ask for your opinion on where he should get his insurance, your “I don’t give a damn” retort looks mighty like a refusal to answer his challenge. A dodge.
(You did the same thing when I made a wasted effort to engage you in a civil discussion some time ago. You claim to have answered questions when you have merely dodged the question with an indirect response.)
Now, would you care to answer fevour’s challenge or point me to where in this thread you have already declared whether or not you believe he should even be ENTITLED to any coverage under his husband’s insurance, same as for a straight couple?
If you don’t give a rat’s arse, that’s fine. That just means you’re refusing the challenge and not answering the question. Your choice.
Whilst you’re mulling over your response, please give a thought to responding to running coach’s challenge to your California diss. Or did you not see that? Could it be that you have him (her?) blocked?
Would in fact SCOTUS itself be able to make a final disposition on an interlocutory appeal?
Yes and no. SCOTUS typically does not decide the merits of a case that is in front of it on certiorari, but it can effectively do so - and sometimes does - by giving instructions to the lower courts that are effectively dicta.
Which is not really that different from what the Texas Supreme Court has done. They have given a hint in glowing neon colours as to what they think the Trial Court should decide.
Dufus, I’m not the one getting all escalated and irrational. Nice try, but it ain’t gonna fly. If you bothered to read the sequence of posts, you’ll find that it followed the typical pattern for the SDMB:
- Somebody posted something
- I responded
- People collectively shit because I dared to respond. It doesn’t matter one whit that my response was correct.
Your snarky little dig at special ed kids applies to damn near everyone else on the SDMB, yourself included. Perhaps you need to quit coming back to the thread.
NC, you are an annoying little pissant.
I answered fervour quite clearly. I don’t care where he gets insurance. I can’t make it any clearer than that. But you didn’t like that response, so all of a sudden, it has turned into a big-ass CHALLENGE in your pointy little head. So try pounding this into your pointy little head: the question has been answered. There is no challenge. There never was.
Let me restate it again, because apparently you are too damn stupid to understand what I am saying: I don’t care where he gets insurance. He can get it from his employer, he can get it from his spouse’s employer, he can go down the street and buy it from Joe’s Pizza And Insurance shop. I. Don’t. Care.
Now that your little strawman argument has been set on fire, let’s go back to the topic at hand, which was that the whining about the court decision was completely unjustified. The SC simply sent it back to the lower court and said get it right. That doesn’t mean Texas hates gays or that Texas is backwards or any of the other bullshit things you people like to spout. Quite the opposite, actually, but then again, why let facts and reality get in the way of a good old braindead rant, right?
That wasn’t what he asked, and you know it.
Yes, there was, you just don’t want to accept it, for whatever reason.
Not. The. Question.
Clothahump, you are a vicious and deeply dishonest man.
You freely acknowledge that your only purpose in infesting this board with your mean-spirited snipes is because it gives you a little buzz antagonizing us zoo monkeys.
I once had the notion that you might not be as horrible in real life as you present yourself here on the board, but I have seen nothing since then in your behavior to support this fleeting thought.
I can only assume that in your dojo you are the master of teaching your charges how to take cheap shots from the low ground and dodge when you don’t have a leg to stand on.
(Still not even an acknowledgement of the existence of running coach’s counterpoint to your original bullshit snipe in this thread. “Back to the issue” my arse.)