Do SCOTUS' Gay Marriage Stays-In-Interim Apply to All 50 States?

[Inevitable]

Funny how all the other threads get attention from the gay crowd but this one.

Telling. Very telling. It scares the crap out of them. There is a "no bump" order from "the lavender gang" at USMB on this thread I can guarantee you. PMs are flying like hotcakes off the griddle on that order.

I have commented.

 

[Silhouette]

You've gotten plenty of attention. The stay SCOTUS granted for the Utah case applies only to the Utah case. Saying otherwise is stupid. Why? Well let's read the actual decision:
"The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is granted. The permanent injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, case No. 2:13-cv-217, on December 20, 2013, is stayed pending final disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. "

SCOTUS specifically said the stay only applies to that single decision by the District Court in Utah. Learn to read.

Were you hoping folks wouldn't hit the link and notice that the stay you linked for Utah was the one clear back in January 2014?

It's not the one I'm talking about. Go ahead and link the July 18, 2014 stay from SCOTUS since that's the one we are talking about.

Nice try though. Shows something about the July 2014 stay is bugging you...

Here's the link for the JULY 2014 stay: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/071814zr_d18e.pdf

 

[Silhouette]

Some of the back and forth..

Bill Duncan, head of the Provo-based Marriage Law Foundation, said Friday's stay indicates the Supreme Court is "more likely than not" to weigh in on whether states can prohibit same-sex marriage.

"It seems to suggest the court is going to want this kind of case at some point," Duncan said. "It doesn’t tell us where they'll end up, but they realize this is an issue they're going to have to deal with."...

...The attorney general's office has argued that the 10th Circuit made a mistake in directing the state to recognize "interim marriages" before the Supreme Court decides whether same-sex marriage is constitutional....

...Block argued that there is no such thing as interim marriages. The state seeks to "effectively divorce" those couples against their wishes by placing their marriages on hold, he wrote in a court brief.

"In seeking to nullify marriages that were legal at the time they were solemnized, defendants seek to do something that is unprecedented in our nation's history," Block wrote.

Schaerr argued that until the constitutional question is resolved, requiring the state to recognize the marriages and provide marital benefits is premature and unwarranted. The unions would be void if same-sex marriage is found unconstitutional, he wrote.... Supreme Court issues stay in Utah gay marriage recognition case | Deseret News

 

[ShackledNation]

You've gotten plenty of attention. The stay SCOTUS granted for the Utah case applies only to the Utah case. Saying otherwise is stupid. Why? Well let's read the actual decision:
"The application for stay presented to Justice Sotomayor and by her referred to the Court is granted. The permanent injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, case No. 2:13-cv-217, on December 20, 2013, is stayed pending final disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. "

SCOTUS specifically said the stay only applies to that single decision by the District Court in Utah. Learn to read.

Were you hoping folks wouldn't hit the link and notice that the stay you linked for Utah was the one clear back in January 2014?

It's not the one I'm talking about. Go ahead and link the July 18, 2014 stay from SCOTUS since that's the one we are talking about.

Nice try though. Shows something about the July 2014 stay is bugging you...

Here's the link for the JULY 2014 stay: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/071814zr_d18e.pdf

Lol, did you even read it? It says the same thing--Utah only. Is that why you didn't quote it yourself? I quote:

"The preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, case No. 2:14-cv-00055-DAK, on May 19, 2014, is stayed"

Again, learn to read.

 

[Silhouette]

"The preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, case No. 2:14-cv-00055-DAK, on May 19, 2014, is stayed"

Again, learn to read.

The title said "January 2014"

Should the rest of the 10th district's voters be denied now the civil right to have their vote count while Utah's citizens enjoy that right?

 

[Inevitable]

"The preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, case No. 2:14-cv-00055-DAK, on May 19, 2014, is stayed"

Again, learn to read.

The title said "January 2014"

Should the rest of the 10th district's voters be denied now the civil right to have their vote count while Utah's citizens enjoy that right?

The right to vote to not let homosexuals be legally married? I don't think that is a right listed in the constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

"The preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, case No. 2:14-cv-00055-DAK, on May 19, 2014, is stayed"

Again, learn to read.

The title said "January 2014"

Should the rest of the 10th district's voters be denied now the civil right to have their vote count while Utah's citizens enjoy that right?

The right to vote to not let homosexuals be legally married? I don't think that is a right listed in the constitution.

Yes it is. Because people who practice homosexual sex compulsively are compulsives. They're not a race or a religion or a gender or a country of origin. What's next, allowing complusive thieves to practice their ownership-orientation because they cannot help "how they're born"?

At least thieving doesn't spread AIDS like homosexuals do.

We understand that behaviors have ways of catching on socially. Laymen call them "fads". And perhaps this explains why we're seeing a 21% increase in HIV in very young men and boys ages 13-24 who are experimenting with the new fad just since the big media push to "include gays in programming" and gay marriage rants have really snowballed...?

We as a society vote on what behaviors we mainstream and which ones we curb. Individual rights on behaviors do not trump the majority. Sorry.

You might want to read Windsor 2013 because in it, it was constitutionally-Found that states' discreet communities have the "unquestioned authority" under the question of gay marriage to say yes or no to it. Thereafter the fed has to agree to whatever the voters of that state said. "In the way the Framers of the Constitution intended".

They also said that right was retroactive to the founding of the country.

Right now California voters sit stripped of their civil rights as their initiative system is being systematically dismantled by seditious leadership...the same people who are the only people the SCOTUS says it will recognize as "having standing" to appeal the rights of the oppressed.

Looks like tyranny found a loophole.. Until a group of voters challenges it...

 

[Silhouette]

Lol, did you even read it? It says the same thing--Utah only...

So Utah is the only state of six in the jurisdiction of the 10th circuit, where the SCOTUS overruled the 10th circuit saying that Utah [a state] has the right to have their voter-enacted one man/one woman law upheld in the interim?

 

[ShackledNation]

"The preliminary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, case No. 2:14-cv-00055-DAK, on May 19, 2014, is stayed"

Again, learn to read.

The title said "January 2014"

Should the rest of the 10th district's voters be denied now the civil right to have their vote count while Utah's citizens enjoy that right?

That's the quote from the link you gave me. It clearly states the decision applies only to Utah.
As to your question...the Utah decision is stayed. On appeal, we will see if what the voters voted for is constitutional. If it is ruled to be unconstitutional, then the votes don't matter because popular vote does not trump the Constitution.

 

[Silhouette]

I'll ask it again:

So Utah is the only state of six in the jurisdiction of the 10th circuit, where the SCOTUS overruled the 10th circuit saying that Utah [a state] has the right to have their voter-enacted one man/one woman law upheld in the interim?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I'll ask it again:

So Utah is the only state of six in the jurisdiction of the 10th circuit, where the SCOTUS overruled the 10th circuit saying that Utah [a state] has the right to have their voter-enacted one man/one woman law upheld in the interim?

OK I'll explain it to you.


1. Based on this case and this case only, the Federal District Court Judge in Utah found Utah's ban as unconstitional, that one ruling ONLY applies to Utah.

2. The 10th Circuit Court has jurisdiction over Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, and Oklahoma.

3. Utah requested a stay from the 10th on the decision and it was denied.

4. Utah then requested a stay from the SCOTUS and it was granted.

5. The stay is applicable only to the Utah case pending an appeal to the SCOTUS, which I believe the Utah AG recently filed with the SCOTUS. If other Federal courts in Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, or Oklahoma were to find their bans unconstitutional - they would have to obtain a separate stay pending appeal.

6. In Oklahoma, a Federal District Court Judge did find that State's ban unconstitutional. That ruling was appealed to the 10th Circuit court. The 10th Circuit upheld the ruling but immediately applied a stay to their own ruling in that case pending appeal based on the fact that the SCOTUS granted the stay in the Utah case.


**************************************


The result is you know have two States in the 10th Circuit Courts jurisdiction in which the State ban was found unconstitutional. The State actors that have standing requested a stay and received it, but the stays were from two different courts: Utah = SCOTUS and Oklahoma = 10th Circuit. The SCOTUS has not stayed the Oklahoma Case, the 10th Circuit did that taking guidance from the previous stay by the SCOTUS in the Utah case.

Now if a 3rd State where to find the ban unconstitutional (Wyoming, Kansas, or Colorado), let's say Wyoming - **IF** those with standing decided to accept the Federal District Court ruling and NOT appeal, then that is the end of the case. The Utah stay by the SCOTUS doesn't apply to a different case out of Wyoming and the 10th Circuit Courts stay doesn't apply to a different case out of Wyoming. Those stays only apply to the cases for which they are issued.



**************************************

Now it is unlikely I agree, but if the SCOTUS were to reject the Writ of Centori from the Utah AG, that's it. The case is over. Utah would then start issuing SSCM Licenses because the District Court ruling would be the final decision in the case. No action would be needed from the 10th Circuit Court because they didn't issue a stay to Utah.

On the other hand Oklahoma wouldn't be impacted by that rejection since the 10th stayed the decision pending Oklahoma's appeal to the SCOTUS. If Oklahoma decides not to proceed with an appeal or if Oklahoma submits a Writ of Centori and that writ is rejected by the SCOTUS - then marriage can't automatically start in Oklahoma. The 10th Circuit would be required to lift it's stay first, but since the 10th's stay for Oklahoma was to provide for an appeal to the SCOTUS if the SCOTUS rejects it then it becomes a paperwork shuffle for the 10th to lift it's stay.


**************************************

Now, again unlikely, but if the SCOTUS rejects the Utah and Oklahoma appeals and the 10th lift's it's stay in Oklahoma then the 10th Circuit Court's decisions in the Utah and Oklahoma cases become binding precedent on lower District Court's within it's jurisdiction.

In Wyoming, Kansas, and Colorado same sex couples in those states would have legal precedence to challenge those states bans. BUt there are already cases working in the system in each one of those states, so now it's just a matter of timing as to whether those cases are resolved at either the Federal District or State Supreme Court levels and either accepted (by those with standing to appeal) or are appealed for further 10th Circuit Court review and ultimately SCOTUS appeal.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

OK I'll explain it to you.


1. Based on this case and this case only, the Federal District Court Judge in Utah found Utah's ban as unconstitional, that one ruling ONLY applies to Utah.

2. The 10th Circuit Court has jurisdiction over Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, and Oklahoma.

3. Utah requested a stay from the 10th on the decision and it was denied.

4. Utah then requested a stay from the SCOTUS and it was granted.

5. The stay is applicable only to the Utah case pending an appeal to the SCOTUS, which I believe the Utah AG recently filed with the SCOTUS. If other Federal courts in Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, or Oklahoma were to find their bans unconstitutional - they would have to obtain a separate stay pending appeal.

6. In Oklahoma, a Federal District Court Judge did find that State's ban unconstitutional. That ruling was appealed to the 10th Circuit court. The 10th Circuit upheld the ruling but immediately applied a stay to their own ruling in that case pending appeal based on the fact that the SCOTUS granted the stay in the Utah case.

1. But the question of legality in the interim on the "one man/one woman" marriage definition present in most of the 50 states is being appealed by many states, not just Utah.

2. Wouldn't SCOTUS overturning the 10th's proclamation/ruling that "Utah has to scrap it's one man/one woman law" apply to all the six states in that circuit court's district since all of them are arguing "one man/one woman" vs same gender?

3. The 10th was OVERRULED!

4. YES!

5. Why, on the identical question of law with a law with the exact wording as California's enacted in precisely the same way, do not even the other state's of the 10th's jurisdiction get the same interim-protection? Is the 10th district superior in prominence over California's 9th district? Ergo, didn't SCOTUS effectively overrule ALL of the lower courts by allowing Utah's law to stand in the interim? Remember, if you argue "no" I'll point out how SCOTUS may not play favorites with states...

6. Runs in my mind that the Oklahoma case was decided before the Utah case at the 10th level. In any event, the 10th applying a stay to Oklahoma because of Utah's win, means that the 10th recognizes the equality in how they were overruled. ie: the 10th must automatically stay any gay marriage in its jurisdiction upon request now. [And I am arguing, WITHOUT request] So recognizing, they are sending a ripple across the other circuit courts, "obey SCOTUS". So in this question you actually answered my question here in #2.

Do you disagree?

 

[Inevitable]

Why is this so important to you?

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK I'll explain it to you.


1. Based on this case and this case only, the Federal District Court Judge in Utah found Utah's ban as unconstitional, that one ruling ONLY applies to Utah.

2. The 10th Circuit Court has jurisdiction over Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, and Oklahoma.

3. Utah requested a stay from the 10th on the decision and it was denied.

4. Utah then requested a stay from the SCOTUS and it was granted.

5. The stay is applicable only to the Utah case pending an appeal to the SCOTUS, which I believe the Utah AG recently filed with the SCOTUS. If other Federal courts in Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, or Oklahoma were to find their bans unconstitutional - they would have to obtain a separate stay pending appeal.

6. In Oklahoma, a Federal District Court Judge did find that State's ban unconstitutional. That ruling was appealed to the 10th Circuit court. The 10th Circuit upheld the ruling but immediately applied a stay to their own ruling in that case pending appeal based on the fact that the SCOTUS granted the stay in the Utah case.

1. But the question of legality in the interim on the "one man/one woman" marriage definition present in most of the 50 states is being appealed by many states, not just Utah.

No disagreement there.

I'm pointing out you incorrect interpretation of what the stay means. Because the SCOTUS issued a stay to Utah pending appeal to the 10th Circuit in January does not mean, from a legal perspective, that that stay applies to all the other cases - it doesn't.

It only applies to the Utah case.

2. Wouldn't SCOTUS overturning the 10th's proclamation/ruling that "Utah has to scrap it's one man/one woman law" apply to all the six states in that circuit court's district since all of them are arguing "one man/one woman" vs same gender?

No it doesn't. It applies only to the Utah case.

Now from that guidance, other Appeals courts are likely to stay their decision pending appeal because the SCOTUS originally issued the Utah Stay while the appeal through the 10th was processed.. That DOES NOT mean they are required to.

If a State ban is struck down and those with standing decide NOT to appeal the case, the Utah stay is of no importance and the applicable appeals court will be taking no action because the appeals court doesn't take action unless there is an appeal. No appeal, not action.

3. The 10th was OVERRULED!

No it wasn't.

The 10th Circuit Courts decision on the constitutionality of the State ban was "stayed", not overruled. The SCOTUS did not overrule the decision, they granted a stay pending appeal.

Two very different things.

5. Why, on the identical question of law with a law with the exact wording as California's enacted in precisely the same way, do not even the other state's of the 10th's jurisdiction get the same interim-protection?

Not identical cases.

Because no one with Standing in the case appealed. Those in the State with Standing accepted the ruling and decided not to proceed.

Is the 10th district superior in prominence over California's 9th district?

Not superior, but two different cases. In the 9th Circuit no one with Standing appealed. In the 10th Circuit someone with Standing did appeal.

Therefore the cases are not "identical".

Ergo, didn't SCOTUS effectively overrule ALL of the lower courts by allowing Utah's law to stand in the interim? Remember, if you argue "no" I'll point out how SCOTUS may not play favorites with states...

Nope, the SCOTUS didn't overule any decision on a case at this point because they have not accepted any case. They issued a stay for Utah (and Utah only) pending appeal to the 10th. And as noted below, I know realize it was the 10th that stayed both the primary Utah and Oklahoma cases pending appeal to the SCOTUS.

6. Runs in my mind that the Oklahoma case was decided before the Utah case at the 10th level. In any event, the 10th applying a stay to Oklahoma because of Utah's win, means that the 10th recognizes the equality in how they were overruled. ie: the 10th must automatically stay any gay marriage in its jurisdiction upon request now. [And I am arguing, WITHOUT request] So recognizing, they are sending a ripple across the other circuit courts, "obey SCOTUS". So in this question you actually answered my question here in #2.

June 25th - 10th Circuit Court issued it's ruling in Kitchen v. Herbert and stayed their own opinion pending appeal to the SCOTUS***

July 18th - 10th Circuit court issued it's ruling in Bishop v. United States and stayed their own opinion pending appeal to the SCOTUS***

(*** In going back to check I know realize my previous statements about two different court stays in terms of the primary case were incorrect. In both primary cases the stays were issued by the 10th Circuit and not the SCOTUS. You can verify that from the 10th's decision, PDF Page 64: " In consideration of the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the district court’s injunction pending the appeal to our circuit, we conclude it is appropriate to STAY our mandate pending the disposition of any subsequently filed petition for writ of certiorari.")

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-4178.pdf

Do you disagree?

Yes, I commonly disagree with your legal interpretations. You are incorrectly stating what stays are, what they mean, and their impact on other cases in the pipeline.


>>>>

 

[Inevitable]

I'll ask it again:

So Utah is the only state of six in the jurisdiction of the 10th circuit, where the SCOTUS overruled the 10th circuit saying that Utah [a state] has the right to have their voter-enacted one man/one woman law upheld in the interim?

OK I'll explain it to you.


1. Based on this case and this case only, the Federal District Court Judge in Utah found Utah's ban as unconstitional, that one ruling ONLY applies to Utah.

2. The 10th Circuit Court has jurisdiction over Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, and Oklahoma.

3. Utah requested a stay from the 10th on the decision and it was denied.

4. Utah then requested a stay from the SCOTUS and it was granted.

5. The stay is applicable only to the Utah case pending an appeal to the SCOTUS, which I believe the Utah AG recently filed with the SCOTUS. If other Federal courts in Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, or Oklahoma were to find their bans unconstitutional - they would have to obtain a separate stay pending appeal.

6. In Oklahoma, a Federal District Court Judge did find that State's ban unconstitutional. That ruling was appealed to the 10th Circuit court. The 10th Circuit upheld the ruling but immediately applied a stay to their own ruling in that case pending appeal based on the fact that the SCOTUS granted the stay in the Utah case.


**************************************


The result is you know have two States in the 10th Circuit Courts jurisdiction in which the State ban was found unconstitutional. The State actors that have standing requested a stay and received it, but the stays were from two different courts: Utah = SCOTUS and Oklahoma = 10th Circuit. The SCOTUS has not stayed the Oklahoma Case, the 10th Circuit did that taking guidance from the previous stay by the SCOTUS in the Utah case.

Now if a 3rd State where to find the ban unconstitutional (Wyoming, Kansas, or Colorado), let's say Wyoming - **IF** those with standing decided to accept the Federal District Court ruling and NOT appeal, then that is the end of the case. The Utah stay by the SCOTUS doesn't apply to a different case out of Wyoming and the 10th Circuit Courts stay doesn't apply to a different case out of Wyoming. Those stays only apply to the cases for which they are issued.



**************************************

Now it is unlikely I agree, but if the SCOTUS were to reject the Writ of Centori from the Utah AG, that's it. The case is over. Utah would then start issuing SSCM Licenses because the District Court ruling would be the final decision in the case. No action would be needed from the 10th Circuit Court because they didn't issue a stay to Utah.

On the other hand Oklahoma wouldn't be impacted by that rejection since the 10th stayed the decision pending Oklahoma's appeal to the SCOTUS. If Oklahoma decides not to proceed with an appeal or if Oklahoma submits a Writ of Centori and that writ is rejected by the SCOTUS - then marriage can't automatically start in Oklahoma. The 10th Circuit would be required to lift it's stay first, but since the 10th's stay for Oklahoma was to provide for an appeal to the SCOTUS if the SCOTUS rejects it then it becomes a paperwork shuffle for the 10th to lift it's stay.


**************************************

Now, again unlikely, but if the SCOTUS rejects the Utah and Oklahoma appeals and the 10th lift's it's stay in Oklahoma then the 10th Circuit Court's decisions in the Utah and Oklahoma cases become binding precedent on lower District Court's within it's jurisdiction.

In Wyoming, Kansas, and Colorado same sex couples in those states would have legal precedence to challenge those states bans. BUt there are already cases working in the system in each one of those states, so now it's just a matter of timing as to whether those cases are resolved at either the Federal District or State Supreme Court levels and either accepted (by those with standing to appeal) or are appealed for further 10th Circuit Court review and ultimately SCOTUS appeal.



>>>>

Very through explanation. Thanks.
it's ridiculous thatin the land of the free with information available at your finger tips at any moment that people don't understand how courts work.

 

[ShackledNation]

OK I'll explain it to you.


1. Based on this case and this case only, the Federal District Court Judge in Utah found Utah's ban as unconstitional, that one ruling ONLY applies to Utah.

2. The 10th Circuit Court has jurisdiction over Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, and Oklahoma.

3. Utah requested a stay from the 10th on the decision and it was denied.

4. Utah then requested a stay from the SCOTUS and it was granted.

5. The stay is applicable only to the Utah case pending an appeal to the SCOTUS, which I believe the Utah AG recently filed with the SCOTUS. If other Federal courts in Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, or Oklahoma were to find their bans unconstitutional - they would have to obtain a separate stay pending appeal.

6. In Oklahoma, a Federal District Court Judge did find that State's ban unconstitutional. That ruling was appealed to the 10th Circuit court. The 10th Circuit upheld the ruling but immediately applied a stay to their own ruling in that case pending appeal based on the fact that the SCOTUS granted the stay in the Utah case.

1. But the question of legality in the interim on the "one man/one woman" marriage definition present in most of the 50 states is being appealed by many states, not just Utah.

No disagreement there.

I'm pointing out you incorrect interpretation of what the stay means. Because the SCOTUS issued a stay to Utah pending appeal to the 10th Circuit in January does not mean, from a legal perspective, that that stay applies to all the other cases - it doesn't.

It only applies to the Utah case.




No it doesn't. It applies only to the Utah case.

Now from that guidance, other Appeals courts are likely to stay their decision pending appeal because the SCOTUS originally issued the Utah Stay while the appeal through the 10th was processed.. That DOES NOT mean they are required to.

If a State ban is struck down and those with standing decide NOT to appeal the case, the Utah stay is of no importance and the applicable appeals court will be taking no action because the appeals court doesn't take action unless there is an appeal. No appeal, not action.



No it wasn't.

The 10th Circuit Courts decision on the constitutionality of the State ban was "stayed", not overruled. The SCOTUS did not overrule the decision, they granted a stay pending appeal.

Two very different things.




Not identical cases.

Because no one with Standing in the case appealed. Those in the State with Standing accepted the ruling and decided not to proceed.




Not superior, but two different cases. In the 9th Circuit no one with Standing appealed. In the 10th Circuit someone with Standing did appeal.

Therefore the cases are not "identical".




Nope, the SCOTUS didn't overule any decision on a case at this point because they have not accepted any case. They issued a stay for Utah (and Utah only) pending appeal to the 10th. And as noted below, I know realize it was the 10th that stayed both the primary Utah and Oklahoma cases pending appeal to the SCOTUS.

6. Runs in my mind that the Oklahoma case was decided before the Utah case at the 10th level. In any event, the 10th applying a stay to Oklahoma because of Utah's win, means that the 10th recognizes the equality in how they were overruled. ie: the 10th must automatically stay any gay marriage in its jurisdiction upon request now. [And I am arguing, WITHOUT request] So recognizing, they are sending a ripple across the other circuit courts, "obey SCOTUS". So in this question you actually answered my question here in #2.

June 25th - 10th Circuit Court issued it's ruling in Kitchen v. Herbert and stayed their own opinion pending appeal to the SCOTUS***

July 18th - 10th Circuit court issued it's ruling in Bishop v. United States and stayed their own opinion pending appeal to the SCOTUS***

(*** In going back to check I know realize my previous statements about two different court stays in terms of the primary case were incorrect. In both primary cases the stays were issued by the 10th Circuit and not the SCOTUS. You can verify that from the 10th's decision, PDF Page 64: " In consideration of the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the district court’s injunction pending the appeal to our circuit, we conclude it is appropriate to STAY our mandate pending the disposition of any subsequently filed petition for writ of certiorari.")

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/13/13-4178.pdf

Do you disagree?

Yes, I commonly disagree with your legal interpretations. You are incorrectly stating what stays are, what they mean, and their impact on other cases in the pipeline.


>>>>

And there we have it. The clear and irrefutable reality of how stays work and their effect. Can we move on now, Silhouette?

 

[Silhouette]

And there we have it. The clear and irrefutable reality of how stays work and their effect. Can we move on now, Silhouette?

Well that all sounds neat and tidy but when lawyers use the actions of SCOTUS and cite them in a challenge to uphold California [or another state's] voters' civil rights to have their vote count as much as Utahans, you saying "potato" and me saying "po-taa-to" may not be as cut and dried as you think.

 

[JoeB131]

And there we have it. The clear and irrefutable reality of how stays work and their effect. Can we move on now, Silhouette?

Well that all sounds neat and tidy but when lawyers use the actions of SCOTUS and cite them in a challenge to uphold California [or another state's] voters' civil rights to have their vote count as much as Utahans, you saying "potato" and me saying "po-taa-to" may not be as cut and dried as you think.

Sil, what are you going to do WHEN the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional?

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, what are you going to do WHEN the Supreme Court rules that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional?

If they change the constitutional Finding in Windsor? So soon?

I guess that's that. The Supreme Court is the end of the line. I've got a question for you...What are you going to do WHEN the Supreme Court reaffirms Windsor and tells everyone it is and always has been up to the states to decide?

Just wondering what the cult of LGBT's game plan is then?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Salt Lake Tribune carried a big story on the all or nothing effort by Utah to get the case in front of SCOTUS. Needs four votes to hear it. If it doesn't, then Utah will be marriage equality and I think the circuit court for the district will follow suit.

Utah files same-sex marriage appeal with U.S. Supreme Court Amendment 3 » The state is using its last chance to keep the ban on same-sex unions.

Utah files same-sex marriage appeal with U.S. Supreme Court | The Salt Lake Tribune