Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Czernobog]

It should also be noted that the Court said it will not hear any of the cases during this session. As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time...

Regarding: "As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time..."

That is incorrect. Once cert is denied, that is the end of the case. There is no "case to pick up later".

Now a different case under different conditions could be "picked-up" under different legal considerations, but these cases are dead.


As an example of what would be "different legal conditions", the current requests were from the 10th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts. The 6th Circuit Court has heard arguments but has not issued an opinion. **IF** they were to uphold a ban and that ruling was appealed you would then have a split in the Circuit Courts, the losing side of the 6th Circuits case could appeal to the SCOTUS and you would then have a "split" in the Circuit Courts the SCOTUS would have to address.



>>>>>

Okay. I may have misunderstood the decision, but, as I understood it, they didn't deny the cases; they simply chose not to hear them during this session. Did I misunderstand?

 

[NoNukes]

wonderful news for individual rights

The right loves the government controlling them. Liking saying who they can marry. They just love big government.

 

[martybegan]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

If you are baker or photographer and have a business in a state that covers gays in Public Accommodation Laws then you have to follow the law. You can't offer a public service and then deny service for those covered under PA laws.

Several years ago Muslims cabbies refuses fares on the grounds that it violated their faith. They were violating PA law and ordered not to do so again. That was seen a slap against "creeping sharia" and radical Islam. Christian bakers were told they also can't use their faith as an excuse to deny a public service in states where gays are protected. Some of those same people that cheered the outcome against Muslims cabbies are now hypocritically crying about how their religious freedoms are stomped on. They can't have it both ways.

This is the typical "one size fits all" approach of PA laws that is quite frankly, stupid.

 

[martybegan]

wonderful news for individual rights

The right loves the government controlling them. Liking saying who they can marry. They just love big government.

LOL.

Progressives love making people live they way the progressives want them to live, or else face government sanction or shaming.

 

[Stephanie]

Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS

States don't have "rights". Under the 9th Amendment people have rights, under the 10th Amendment States have "powers".



>>>>>

I'm not interested in apples and oranges. thank you

 

[Anathema]

Wow...so now the Extreme right wing is, as always, advocating violence, and murder when they don't get their way. Thanks ever so much for demonstrating your complete lack of respect for the law, the Constitution, and this nation.

Might makes Right. Always has a d always will. Nor have I or others like me ever found a reason to follow immoral and valueless Laws, Rules or Regulations.

I have no respect for ANY Western nation at thus point in history.

 

[Stephanie]

wonderful news for individual rights

The right loves the government controlling them. Liking saying who they can marry. They just love big government.

LOL.

Progressives love making people live they way the progressives want them to live, or else face government sanction or shaming.

this motto is theirs everyone needs to remember it

Scratch a liberal/progressive/commie find a FASCIST

 

[Czernobog]

Someone needs a lesson on STATES RIGHTS

It was accepted long ago that the Supreme Court made a very bad decision when it legalized abortion with the decision in Roe v. Wade. That decision is what set every subsequent battle over abortion rights. That's why they refused to hear these cases and left it to the states. If they had left abortion as a decision to be made by the states none of that would have happened. These justices weren't about to repeat that mistake which would drag every same sex marriage challenge to the federal level just like abortion has been dragged to the federal level.

True. But the "bad decision" wasn't that they legalized abortion; the "bad decision" was that they ruled on the wrong issue. This wasn't really the fault of the court, but on the part of the lawyers who argued the case. This should never have been a question of the very narrow issue of "right of privacy" between a doctor and his/her patient. It should have been argued as a case of "right of ownership" of one's own body. That would have made the decision much more definitive, and had a much more comprehensive impact on the question of individual liberty.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It should also be noted that the Court said it will not hear any of the cases during this session. As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time...

Regarding: "As I understand it, this still leaves them the option to pick any of the cases up at a later time..."

That is incorrect. Once cert is denied, that is the end of the case. There is no "case to pick up later".

Now a different case under different conditions could be "picked-up" under different legal considerations, but these cases are dead.


As an example of what would be "different legal conditions", the current requests were from the 10th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts. The 6th Circuit Court has heard arguments but has not issued an opinion. **IF** they were to uphold a ban and that ruling was appealed you would then have a split in the Circuit Courts, the losing side of the 6th Circuits case could appeal to the SCOTUS and you would then have a "split" in the Circuit Courts the SCOTUS would have to address.



>>>>>

Okay. I may have misunderstood the decision, but, as I understood it, they didn't deny the cases; they simply chose not to hear them during this session. Did I misunderstand?

Yes you misunderstood (no offense).

In the orders Certiorari was denied, not delayed. If delayed they would have been saying "we have this item before us now, but will decide on the writ (i.e. Writ of Certiorari) at a later conference. That's not what they did, they denied the writ, ending any further legal action in to those cases. The stay(s) that had been in place were conditional on: (a) the SCOTUS accepting the case and issuing a ruling, or (b) the SCOTUS denying the writ. Now that the writ is denied, the stay is lifted. It will then revert to the lower courts to remove of their stay's. The States within their jurisdictions will then be required to follow their decision.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100614zor.pdf


>>>>

 

[Nosmo King]

Yep, they love activist Judges in their black robes until it comes to hobby lobby or something

this means nothing. You can't force a STATE to do anything even though you all love to stomp on the voters who lives in them and votes down homosexual marriage. scratch a liberal find a fascist

For all your bitching about Fascism and your silly avatar calling the president a tyrant, you certainly don't mind repressing freedoms of those you openly hate. Some might call this hypocrisy. But judging from your previous posts and attitudes, I simply recognize cruelty coupled with stupidity in you.

 

[R.D.]

Oh, shit! I'm hearing a commentator suggesting that this doesn't become the law of the land in those states, but in the entire district that each of those federal district court holds jurisdiction over. That means, the bans still in place in 11 other states in those district also become invalid!

Which is why it's better to understand what things mean before acting like a faith bashing ass

Not once did I bash a faith. I bashed fanatics who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their faith as a matter of law. The only people who don't know the difference are the fanatics. Are you a fanatic R.D.?

Walk it back

 

[mdk]

wonderful news for individual rights

The right loves the government controlling them. Liking saying who they can marry. They just love big government.

LOL.

Progressives love making people live they way the progressives want them to live, or else face government sanction or shaming.

In many ways social conservatives are exactly the same. Nutty progressive and social conservatives are a different side of the same coin.

 

[Czernobog]

Yes you misunderstood (no offense).

In othe orders Certiorari was denied, not delayed. If delayed they would have been saying "we have this item before us now, but will decide on the writ (i.e. Writ of Certiorari) at a later conference. That's not what they did, they denied the writ, ending any further legal action in to those cases. That stay(s) that had been in place were conditional on: (a) the SCOTUS accepting the case and issuing a ruling, or (b) the SCOTUS denying the writ. Now that the writ is denied, the stay is lifted. It will then revert to the lower courts to remove of their stay's. The States within their jurisdictions will then be required to follow their decision.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100614zor.pdf


>>>>

Alrighty then. Thanks for that.

 

[mdk]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

If you are baker or photographer and have a business in a state that covers gays in Public Accommodation Laws then you have to follow the law. You can't offer a public service and then deny service for those covered under PA laws.

Several years ago Muslims cabbies refuses fares on the grounds that it violated their faith. They were violating PA law and ordered not to do so again. That was seen a slap against "creeping sharia" and radical Islam. Christian bakers were told they also can't use their faith as an excuse to deny a public service in states where gays are protected. Some of those same people that cheered the outcome against Muslims cabbies are now hypocritically crying about how their religious freedoms are stomped on. They can't have it both ways.

This is the typical "one size fits all" approach of PA laws that is quite frankly, stupid.

I am not exactly wild about PA laws myself but sadly it appears they are still needed. I believe most states don't cover gays under PA laws, my state is one of them in fact.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh, shit! I'm hearing a commentator suggesting that this doesn't become the law of the land in those states, but in the entire district that each of those federal district court holds jurisdiction over. That means, the bans still in place in 11 other states in those district also become invalid!

Which is why it's better to understand what things mean before acting like a faith bashing ass

Not once did I bash a faith. I bashed fanatics who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their faith as a matter of law. The only people who don't know the difference are the fanatics. Are you a fanatic R.D.?

Walk it back

Quote where I bashed a faith. In fact, I'll do you one better. I'll quote what I actually said:

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Now, would you like explain how "religious fanatics" morphs into "faith bashing", or would you like to just admit to your lie.

 

[Stephanie]

Clearly, those who oppose marriage equality are losing this fight.

We have not yet begun to FIGHT. Let's see how many churches, Justices of the Peace, Town Clerks, etc.... are willing to be involved in thus when they start turning up like abortion doctors..... dead.

Wow...so now the Extreme right wing is, as always, advocating violence, and murder when they don't get their way. Thanks ever so much for demonstrating your complete lack of respect for the law, the Constitution, and this nation.

go grow up, you don't even have a clue about a states rights. and this isn't a left or right thing ok. just admit you got ass handed to you then slink away gracefully.

 

[AceRothstein]

wonderful news for individual rights

The right loves the government controlling them. Liking saying who they can marry. They just love big government.

LOL.

Progressives love making people live they way the progressives want them to live, or else face government sanction or shaming.

this motto is theirs everyone needs to remember it

Scratch a liberal/progressive/commie find a FASCIST

You are so full of hate.

 

[R.D.]

Oh, shit! I'm hearing a commentator suggesting that this doesn't become the law of the land in those states, but in the entire district that each of those federal district court holds jurisdiction over. That means, the bans still in place in 11 other states in those district also become invalid!

Which is why it's better to understand what things mean before acting like a faith bashing ass

Not once did I bash a faith. I bashed fanatics who want to force everyone else to behave in accordance with their faith as a matter of law. The only people who don't know the difference are the fanatics. Are you a fanatic R.D.?

Walk it back

Quote where I bashed a faith. In fact, I'll do you one better. I'll quote what I actually said:

Bad news for the religious fanatics.

Now, would you like explain how "religious fanatics" morphs into "faith bashing", or would you like to just admit to your lie.

I don't have to, you did, again. It's the faithful who are for traditional marriage, those who you called fanatics. Coupled with many who don't even practice any faith.

Those same faithful are not homophobic, against equality, racist or running scared because fools like yourself try to peg them as such.

 

[Czernobog]

wonderful news for individual rights

The right loves the government controlling them. Liking saying who they can marry. They just love big government.

LOL.

Progressives love making people live they way the progressives want them to live, or else face government sanction or shaming.

Wrong, again. progressives promote policies that don't "make' people live in any way. Rather they promote policies - like marriage equality, and Pro-Choice - that allows everyone to live as they personally see fit. You see, there is nothing in the support of marriage equality that says you have to marry someone of the same sex - only that you don't get to tell anyone else that they can't. There is noting in Pro-Choice that says you must get an abortion - only that you don't get to tell anyone else that they can't.

Progressive policies allow you to believe anything you want, and to act in accordance with those believes. The only thing Progressive policies won't allow you to do is to force other people to do the same, whether they agree with you, or not.

 

[martybegan]

wonderful news for individual rights

Unless you are a baker or a photographer.

If you are baker or photographer and have a business in a state that covers gays in Public Accommodation Laws then you have to follow the law. You can't offer a public service and then deny service for those covered under PA laws.

Several years ago Muslims cabbies refuses fares on the grounds that it violated their faith. They were violating PA law and ordered not to do so again. That was seen a slap against "creeping sharia" and radical Islam. Christian bakers were told they also can't use their faith as an excuse to deny a public service in states where gays are protected. Some of those same people that cheered the outcome against Muslims cabbies are now hypocritically crying about how their religious freedoms are stomped on. They can't have it both ways.

This is the typical "one size fits all" approach of PA laws that is quite frankly, stupid.

I am not exactly wild about PA laws myself but sadly it appears they are still needed. I believe most states don't cover gays under PA laws, my state is one of them in fact.

PA laws are needed for any form of government service, or quasi-government service. I can also see the need for them for such essential services as transportation, lodging, and basic food-stuff provision.

What they are not needed for are non-essential services, nor to protect the feelings of people. They are designed to prevent systemic discrimination in the public square, not forcing someone to go against their morals.