Death Penalty vs Gay Marriage

[Procrustes Stretched]

Can one use the same arguments about the state's role, voter public opinion, and Constitutional guarantees concerning the death penalty as one has used concerning gay marriages?

The principles involved in the arguments are similar.

An amendment to the constitution vs voter opinion, public morality, and tradition, and the bible and..,

----

The death penalty is barbaric and it is always cruel and unusual punishment...so should we get rid of it all together? The rights of the defendants trump public opinion, which is fickle.

The Constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment...should it be ignored if a state has a referendum where the majority of voters (even if only 49% of eligible voters, vote) decide they want to keep the death penalty?

 

[JD_2B]

I suppose someone could, but it would only be yet another appeal to emotion, which there is no legal standard for. =)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I suppose someone could, but it would only be yet another appeal to emotion, which there is no legal standard for. =)

Appeals to emotion can be heard in courts, but they carry little weight.

But it can and probably should be argued that the death penalty can be viewed as cruel and unusual punishment in a civilized society. I do favor the death penalty at times, but that is an emotional response to specific crimes. I do not want mine or yours emotions dictating things.

 

[lawbuff]

The SC permits the death penalty under the 8th, so it is a state's decision. The SC has decided the same sex marriage issue, so it is up to a state then to decide if it violates thier own laws/constitution, since the SC upheld the ban on federal constitutional grounds.

 

[uscitizen]

So if I was convicted I would either be sentenced to death or to marry a man?

I will have to ponder on that for a bit.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The SC permits the death penalty under the 8th, so it is a state's decision. The SC has decided the same sex marriage issue, so it is up to a state then to decide if it violates thier own laws/constitution, since the SC upheld the ban on federal constitutional grounds.

I understand, but the SCOTUS can revisit these fundamental questions.

The SCOTUS has NOT decided the issue in regards gay marriage rights.

 

[lawbuff]

The SCOTUS has NOT decided the issue in regards gay marriage rights.

They did in 1971, research Baker v. Nelson.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The SCOTUS has NOT decided the issue in regards gay marriage rights.

They did in 1971, research Baker v. Nelson.

The SCOTUS did not decide a thing. They put it off until later.

You really do need to comprehend what you read:

Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson[1] was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question."

 

[lawbuff]

The SCOTUS has NOT decided the issue in regards gay marriage rights.

They did in 1971, research Baker v. Nelson.

The SCOTUS did not decide a thing. They put it off until later.

You really do need to comprehend what you read:

Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson[1] was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question."

No, you need to comprehend what you read, try to find out what "dismissed for want of a substantial federal question", really means. If you do, you will find it is a "decision on the merits", a Summary decision to prevent inferior courts from coming to opposite conclusions.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, you need to comprehend what you read, try to find out what "dismissed for want of a substantial federal question", really means. If you do, you will find it is a "decision on the merits", a Summary decision to prevent inferior courts from coming to opposite conclusions.

And the merits then were what the arguments were that particular case.

This case is substantially different. You have two ideologically opposed lawyers joining forces and arguing this.
Two lawyers who are huge in the field of law.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In the Minn. State Court Case, the SCOTUS did not review the 14th amendment rights of gay individuals seeking to marry.

 

[lawbuff]

Since you posted this to me, instead of trying to discuss it from an educational adult standpoint :I See You are Still Stuck On Stupid: I will not direct you to the proper links, you'd just dispute them anyway.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Grow some balls.

Since you posted this to me, instead of trying to discuss it from an educational adult standpoint :I See You are Still Stuck On Stupid: I will not direct you to the proper links, you'd just dispute them anyway.

I would not knowingly dispute facts . I would dispute opinion.

Post a few links and later on I'll see what you're made of.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Since you posted this to me, instead of trying to discuss it from an educational adult standpoint :I See You are Still Stuck On Stupid: I will not direct you to the proper links, you'd just dispute them anyway.

somebody said it better than I could over at Opposing Views: Issues, Experts, Answers

Actually, the CA Supreme Court specifically cited Loving in its decision, "In re Marriage Cases," which legalized same-gender marriage in CA.

As Prop 8 continues its appeals process through the Federal Court system we may very well see exactly how Loving (and Perez, an earlier CASC antimiscegenation decision) apply to the issue of same-gender marriage.

I'm sure you'd like to believe that it's not applicable, but that remains to be seen.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Grow some balls.

Since you posted this to me, instead of trying to discuss it from an educational adult standpoint :I See You are Still Stuck On Stupid: I will not direct you to the proper links, you'd just dispute them anyway.

I would not knowingly dispute facts . I would dispute opinion.

Post a few links and later on I'll see what you're made of.

from The Advocate web site regarding the MINN case...in federal court

Here is the key sentence. Citing Baker, the Justice Department writes: "Regardless of whether same-sex marriage is appropriate policy, under current legal precedent there is no constitutional right to it, and that precedent is binding on these parties and this court."

Professor Dorf commented: "The fact that the Obama administration is arguing this only boosts the case for supporters of Prop. 8. And it offers an easy out for a judge who doesn't want to take the heat for deciding this."

For now, the Boies-Olson team is taking a relatively relaxed view of the matter. "The good news is, the assertion is completely wrong," said Ted Boutrous, a partner in Olson's firm of Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher. "What Baker v. Nelson means is that whatever law was on the books in Minnesota at the time is potentially insulated from review. It would have no binding effect on reviewing Prop. 8."

 

[Ravi]

The SC permits the death penalty under the 8th, so it is a state's decision. The SC has decided the same sex marriage issue, so it is up to a state then to decide if it violates thier own laws/constitution, since the SC upheld the ban on federal constitutional grounds.

How so?

Personally, I think people are retarded to give the government the power over life or death.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Since you posted this to me, instead of trying to discuss it from an educational adult standpoint :I See You are Still Stuck On Stupid: I will not direct you to the proper links, you'd just dispute them anyway.

from august...before the Federal Court Agreed to hear the case...

In a court brief filed yesterday, the Boies-Olson team elaborate this argument further, saying that circumstances in modern-day California are entirely different from 1970s Minnesota, and that the legal environment has changed entirely because of such landmark LGBT rights rulings as Romer v. Evans (a Colorado state discrimination case) and Lawrence v. Texas (which overturned existing state anti-sodomy laws).
"Even if Baker had not been conclusively undermined by the Supreme Court's subsequent decisions in Romer and Lawrence, " the brief says, "it still would not be binding on this court because the Supreme Court's summary dismissals have controlling force only 'on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided' by the Supreme Court." The Advocate Web Site......source..

 

[lawbuff]

The SC permits the death penalty under the 8th, so it is a state's decision. The SC has decided the same sex marriage issue, so it is up to a state then to decide if it violates thier own laws/constitution, since the SC upheld the ban on federal constitutional grounds.

How so?

Personally, I think people are retarded to give the government the power over life or death.

Many are opposed to the death penalty and don't want the state doing it in thier name, I understand that. The current Prop 8 case is based on the legality of DOMA, not Baker, but the binding effect of Baker is still a reality. I posted this link in another thread about this some months ago. I simply stated the SC ruled that same sex marriage prohibitions do not violate the federal constitution. I have seen no babsis to retract that, either in this thread or the old ones.

In part:

In most cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court's refusal to hear the case is not an endorsement of the decision below.[13] Because this case came to the Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal is a decision on the merits of the case.[14] As binding precedent, the Baker decision prevents lower courts from coming to a contrary conclusion when presented with the precise issues the Court necessarily considered in dismissing the case.[15]

Baker v. Nelson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[lawbuff]

Ravi, here is an old thread that we discussed it in and I am well aware of the Romer and Evans cases possibly releasing a lower court from Baker through doctrinal developments, read the whole thread, but post 188 of mine is on point.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...r-constitutionalists-only-13.html#post1530078

Also see post 191 by BGG.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The SC permits the death penalty under the 8th, so it is a state's decision.

The SC has decided the same sex marriage issue, so it is up to a state then to decide if it violates thier own laws/constitution, since the SC upheld the ban on federal constitutional grounds.

How so?

Personally, I think people are retarded to give the government the power over life or death.

I agree. Giving anyone power over life and death is silly. But why use 'retarded' here? Why are you so hateful about a condition that affects innocents and their families and loved ones in so many ways?

Why are you so mean?

Oh yeah! You're no liberal. You're a progressive.

never mind