To the extent that they receive public support, we are in agreement.
Today the pro-SSM lawyers filed their request asking that Sotomayor not grant the stay that Utah wants.
That’s generally the reason they are no longer receiving that public support, in many if not most locales.
Kind of a bummer that it’s full of legalese and references. I was hoping for “Just read what the other guys wrote–and grant the stay if you can keep a straight face.” But I suppose that doesn’t hold up in legal circles.
I just read that, and I thought it was a very concise, well-written, slam-dunk. IANAL, but that seemed to me to be about as perfect a “just read what the other guy wrote–he ain’t got nuthin” legal document as I’ll prolly ever see.
I’ll be very surprised if Justice Sotomayer grants a stay. VERY surprised.
A lot of the internet pundits think that the most likely scenario is that she’ll refer it to the whole court.
Guy goes on hunger strike to stop gay marriage in Utah.
Go for it, dude.
Similar example from last year: So, would it kill you to accept same-sex marriage? Huh - apparently, it would.
Awesome. Is he accepting care packages? People might like to send him some more nothing.
I don’t think it is fair to characterise jtgain’s position as homophobia. My recollection is that in other legal threads he’s participated in, not related to SSM, he’s taken a similar strong 10th Amendment position, and a scepticism towards judicial review because of its anti-democratic nature. (No cites to those threads, sorry - it’s late at night and I’m going to bed.)
His position here seems consistent with that approach to US federalism issues, rather than him structuring his legal arguments to advance a particular position on SSM.
Maybe. Of course, my personal position in regards to the 10th Amendment and the ridiculousness of extending state sovereignty that far should be pretty obvious, given the history of the extension of rights to minorities shows the limitations of that philosophy. I tend to believe that the Civil War answered the questions about the limits of state’s rights fairly well, despite attempts to reverse the trend.
Sure, and that’s a reasonable subject for debate. Just saying that I wasn’t surprised by his position in the thread because it struck me as consistent with his views on federalism and judicial review generally, rather than an argument tailored to the issue of SSM.
I must say, I particularly enjoyed this section:
That has to be the most well stated “Gotcha!” I’ve read in a long time.
After reading that article I deduced this young man misunderstands two important things - a hunger strike means non per ora and yet he’s drinking water and taking vitamins. That’s a fast, as he’s still taking precautions to keep his health; he’s showing there’s something that’s still more important to him than SSM and is just having a tantrum. Gandhi he is not.
And he thinks Utah can nullify the Federal decision. If nullification was an option, does he believe Utah wouldn’t have exercised it by now? Gov. Herbert’s frothing at the mouth to stave off SSM but he could simply nullify it? Bollocks. Eat something kid, you’re an even bigger idiot when you’re hungry.
Most “hunger strikers” (including Gandhi, much of the time) take liquids. Not ingesting anything would see you dead in a matter of days; even the best-hydrated human can’t hope to live more than 10 days without fluids.
Full Court, no dissent, which is SCOTUSese for “Hey! Don’t try to bring this question in front of us again so soon, dammit!” Any case that would go to the Supreme Court would have to be certed this month to get in for the next session, so keeping this down in the Circuit gives them at least another full year before they have to take it up.
This does not surprise me (for reasons I’ve exhausted here). It also does not surprise me that she referred it to the court.
I’m not sure how this decision alters the view of those who found that the denial of a stay in the lower courts was “proof” that the case was over.
I’m more interested to know what this means for those people who obtained marriage licenses before the stay. I assume they’re still married pending the outcome of the appeal, right?
They were in California. Here… well, who knows? We won’t find out unless one of them tries to obtain a divorce or file a state income tax return, I suppose.
I thought Walker issued the stay simultaneously with the ruling? So how could that have come up?