Fascists Leaders in California Sense The Future: Attempt Another Coup on Democracy

[PaintMyHouse]

CA's vote was ruled unconstitutional and the SC let that stand. That's over and done with. They will probably do the same in Utah, but the Utah AG has the standing to appeal so they are waiting for that. We'll see.

Nope, the only thing that SCOTUS said about Prop 8 so far was that [in Windsor 2013] states have the "unquestioned authority" on defining marriage under the question of gay marriage and more recently [Utah stay July 18, 2014], the power of the state's voters [and their civil right to democracy rule] takes precedent in the interim over any claim that gays have a supposed "civil right to gay marriage".

Try not to lie next time.

I rarely lie, and there's no need to here, and the fact that you can't understand what is happening cannot be helped.

 

[dcraelin]

[
Sigh, I didnt think you'd be able to. Rehashed verbal sophistry.

I'm not "demanding" the the courts abandon precedent. This is a message board, a forum for debate. Im saying their so-called "precedent" is total bullshit. Sure, it would be nice for them to try and correct bad precedent as USSCs have done in the past, Or perhaps they could consider it in weighing a solution,.. whatever.

I brought up 'ex parte young' also to show hypocrisy of their "reasoning" on standing. Recent "reasoning" that it would be very wise of them to overrule. Sotomayor agrees with me, and so should anyone not wholly absorbed in one issue and one issue alone. People need to step back and see the dangers these cases will cause in other areas and get past a narrow-minded "win" on one issue.

Stare Decisis is largely just an excuse to ignore the logic of the law when the judges personal feelings are inline with a case based on a mistake of the past.

There are other problems with the lower court ruling on prop 8 that I think The USSC court maybe seeing. Glaringly just the obvious common sense truth that the 14th amendment does not address sexual identity and was plainly meant to address racial issues only.

The Utah case is also a glimmer of hope as Silhouette outlines well.

Why thank you! Don't you think at the very least that the six states that make up the jurisdiction of the 10th circuit must also default to the civil rights of their voters? After all, in issuing the stay, the SCOTUS effectively overruled the 10th's denial of the stay. And the 10th's reach is not just Utah. It also includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma & Wyoming any one of those states voters' should have now an excellent chance at standing to have their civil right to uphold their vote protected in an emergency appeal to SCOTUS. In all those states any one of the voters would have standing to have their marriage laws upheld in the interim.

One mistake of the past is California and saying that neither registered voters nor a county clerk have standing to seek redress to enforce the power of the state's initiative system while rogue officials charged with representing them at the federal level are systematically and seditiously dismantling initiative law without permission from voters.

Well Im not sure what stays say about underlying law, but as you outlined it, the SCOTUS permitting a stay, then I would even think it goes past the 10th circuit.

Agree absolutely about the mistakes in California

 

[Silhouette]

[
Sigh, I didnt think you'd be able to. Rehashed verbal sophistry.

I'm not "demanding" the the courts abandon precedent. This is a message board, a forum for debate. Im saying their so-called "precedent" is total bullshit. Sure, it would be nice for them to try and correct bad precedent as USSCs have done in the past, Or perhaps they could consider it in weighing a solution,.. whatever.

I brought up 'ex parte young' also to show hypocrisy of their "reasoning" on standing. Recent "reasoning" that it would be very wise of them to overrule. Sotomayor agrees with me, and so should anyone not wholly absorbed in one issue and one issue alone. People need to step back and see the dangers these cases will cause in other areas and get past a narrow-minded "win" on one issue.

Stare Decisis is largely just an excuse to ignore the logic of the law when the judges personal feelings are inline with a case based on a mistake of the past.

There are other problems with the lower court ruling on prop 8 that I think The USSC court maybe seeing. Glaringly just the obvious common sense truth that the 14th amendment does not address sexual identity and was plainly meant to address racial issues only.

The Utah case is also a glimmer of hope as Silhouette outlines well.

Why thank you! Don't you think at the very least that the six states that make up the jurisdiction of the 10th circuit must also default to the civil rights of their voters? After all, in issuing the stay, the SCOTUS effectively overruled the 10th's denial of the stay. And the 10th's reach is not just Utah. It also includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma & Wyoming any one of those states voters' should have now an excellent chance at standing to have their civil right to uphold their vote protected in an emergency appeal to SCOTUS. In all those states any one of the voters would have standing to have their marriage laws upheld in the interim.

One mistake of the past is California and saying that neither registered voters nor a county clerk have standing to seek redress to enforce the power of the state's initiative system while rogue officials charged with representing them at the federal level are systematically and seditiously dismantling initiative law without permission from voters.

Well Im not sure what stays say about underlying law, but as you outlined it, the SCOTUS permitting a stay, then I would even think it goes past the 10th circuit.

Agree absolutely about the mistakes in California

You call them "mistakes". I call them conspiracy to commit calculated sedition that is taking advantage of and flipping the bird to a waffling SCOTUS...

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well Im not sure what stays say about underlying law, but as you outlined it, the SCOTUS permitting a stay, then I would even think it goes past the 10th circuit.

Agree absolutely about the mistakes in California

You call them "mistakes". I call them conspiracy to commit calculated sedition that is taking advantage of and flipping the bird to a waffling SCOTUS...

Then it appears neither one of you have read the decisions in the matter, the 9th Circuit remanded the question of "Standing" to the California Supreme Court as part of it's decision making process.

See Prop 8 Decision PDF Page 4 - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf

California responded in the affirmative that the supporters of the proposition did have standing to defend the law in appeal. The SCOTUS are the ones that rejected proponents standing, not California.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Well Im not sure what stays say about underlying law, but as you outlined it, the SCOTUS permitting a stay, then I would even think it goes past the 10th circuit.

Agree absolutely about the mistakes in California

You call them "mistakes". I call them conspiracy to commit calculated sedition that is taking advantage of and flipping the bird to a waffling SCOTUS...

Then it appears neither one of you have read the decisions in the matter, the 9th Circuit remanded the question of "Standing" to the California Supreme Court as part of it's decision making process.

See Prop 8 Decision PDF Page 4 - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf

California responded in the affirmative that the supporters of the proposition did have standing to defend the law in appeal. The SCOTUS are the ones that rejected proponents standing, not California.


>>>>

And what you just said doesn't amount to a hill of beans. If there are two conflicting rulings with SCOTUS, you just press the issue. In Utah they acted to protect the civil rights of voters to basic democracy, using Windsor as a guide. So must they protect ALL civil rights in all 50 states in the interim as well.

You know they can't play favorites with the 50 states. Or did you miss that part of old established case law?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You call them "mistakes". I call them conspiracy to commit calculated sedition that is taking advantage of and flipping the bird to a waffling SCOTUS...

Then it appears neither one of you have read the decisions in the matter, the 9th Circuit remanded the question of "Standing" to the California Supreme Court as part of it's decision making process.

See Prop 8 Decision PDF Page 4 - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf

California responded in the affirmative that the supporters of the proposition did have standing to defend the law in appeal. The SCOTUS are the ones that rejected proponents standing, not California.


>>>>

And what you just said doesn't amount to a hill of beans. If there are two conflicting rulings with SCOTUS, you just press the issue. In Utah they acted to protect the civil rights of voters to basic democracy, using Windsor as a guide. So must they protect ALL civil rights in all 50 states in the interim as well.

You know they can't play favorites with the 50 states. Or did you miss that part of old established case law?

How many times do you have to be told they are not protecting the rights of the voters, they are protecting the rights of the state to appeal, which CA did not bother with because what CA voters voted for is unconstitutional.

 

[dcraelin]

Well Im not sure what stays say about underlying law, but as you outlined it, the SCOTUS permitting a stay, then I would even think it goes past the 10th circuit.
Agree absolutely about the mistakes in California

You call them "mistakes". I call them conspiracy to commit calculated sedition that is taking advantage of and flipping the bird to a waffling SCOTUS...

Then it appears neither one of you have read the decisions in the matter, the 9th Circuit remanded the question of "Standing" to the California Supreme Court as part of it's decision making process.
See Prop 8 Decision PDF Page 4 - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf
California responded in the affirmative that the supporters of the proposition did have standing to defend the law in appeal. The SCOTUS are the ones that rejected proponents standing, not California.
>>>>

I'm not disputing that,i.e. that SCOTUS rejected proponents standing, just saying it made absolutely no sense....and is a very dangerous ruling......no matter what your view of gay marriage. Sotomayor agrees...

further it is a ruling that makes a mockery of fairness in judicial treatment. IF proponents had known they would be denied standing, they, AND the state should have, and likely would have approached the case differently.

further, IF a federal court allows private parties to oppose a state law in federal court under the dubious process of ex-parte young, then surely 7million voters should also be allowed standing.

further, Marshall said all cases before the court should be real cases. Olsen and Boies(sp?) shopped around for the "perfect" couples to challenge the law. It was a manufactured, fraudulent case from the start. Olsen and Boies also went against the wishes of leadership in the gay community.....tho they apparently later decided to go along with it.

further, the case in the lower federal court was tried before a gay judge. To pretend this wasn't a conflict of interest is appalling.


here is an article on another issue in California where the plain intent of the voters was ignored by the courts
Court Allows California High-Speed Rail to Violate Terms in Voter-Approved Bond Measure: Press Release from Legal Team | Citizens for California High-Speed Rail Accountability

 

[EriktheRed]

Fag-bashers lost.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm not disputing that,i.e. that SCOTUS rejected proponents standing, just saying it made absolutely no sense....and is a very dangerous ruling......no matter what your view of gay marriage. Sotomayor agrees...

further it is a ruling that makes a mockery of fairness in judicial treatment. IF proponents had known they would be denied standing, they, AND the state should have, and likely would have approached the case differently.

further, IF a federal court allows private parties to oppose a state law in federal court under the dubious process of ex-parte young, then surely 7million voters should also be allowed standing.

further, Marshall said all cases before the court should be real cases. Olsen and Boies(sp?) shopped around for the "perfect" couples to challenge the law. It was a manufactured, fraudulent case from the start. Olsen and Boies also went against the wishes of leadership in the gay community.....tho they apparently later decided to go along with it.

further, the case in the lower federal court was tried before a gay judge. To pretend this wasn't a conflict of interest is appalling.


here is an article on another issue in California where the plain intent of the voters was ignored by the courts
Court Allows California High-Speed Rail to Violate Terms in Voter-Approved Bond Measure: Press Release from Legal Team | Citizens for California High-Speed Rail Accountability

Excellent points as usual. Especially the part in bold. And that part in bold may be the hinge of voters challenging to keep their civil right in both the California Constitution and the US Constitution to have the power of their vote count.

 

[Skylar]

further, IF a federal court allows private parties to oppose a state law in federal court under the dubious process of ex-parte young, then surely 7million voters should also be allowed standing.

These are private parties harmed by the law. Of course they'll have standing. The 'friends of Prop 8' have no standing as they have no harm, nor role in the enforcement of those laws. The State of California has a role in enforcement, and thus standing. And like any litigant, can choose what action to take on litigation they are a party to. In this case, the State of California choose to take no action.

This choice doesn't suddenly pass enforcement authority to individual citizens. They still play no role in enforcement. Leaving actual harm by the law the only remaining basis of standing.

 

[Skylar]

NO I'm simply arguing logic, and right and wrong.....When I say "the Courts can be as inconsistent as they want" what about that tells you I think the court wont get its way? Or that the Olsen Boies wont get their way.....

You're demanding that the courts abandon precedent....because you disagree with the precedent. Failing to recognize that's a demand that's simply irrelevant to the outcome of the case because the courts aren't going to abandon the entire concept of stare decisis because you don't like it.
Nothing you're demanding the court do would ever actually happen in a court of law. Once a case has been used as precedent, its use as precedent becomes the basis of its application in future cases. Not the merits of the case itself. And Exparte Young has been used for over a century as precedent in countless cases.
That you disagree with the USSC is utterly meaningless in terms of the case's authority, or its use as precedent since 1908. Your argument has no legal relevance to the ajudication of Prop 8 as the courts will no more ignore a century's worth of legal precedent because you don't like a ruling than they will ignore the 14th amendment because you don't like the amendment.
Rendering your entire argument little more than rhetorical masturbation that has literally nothing to do with the outcome of the Prop 8 case or the outcome of any case argued in the federal judiciary.
As a century's worth of precedent trumps your personal opinion in any court of law. Ending your entire argument.

Sigh, I didnt think you'd be able to. Rehashed verbal sophistry.

I'm not "demanding" the the courts abandon precedent. This is a message board, a forum for debate. Im saying their so-called "precedent" is total bullshit.

And I'm saying, so what if that's what you're saying? Who gives a shit if you agree or disagree with the merits of a 100 year old case?

Your personal opinion about 100 year old precedent is irrelevant to the outcome of any case (including this one), as the courts will not abandon stare decisis just because you don't like it. As I said, once a case has been used as precedent, its use as precedent becomes the basis of its application in future cases. Not the merits of the case itself.

Your attacking the merits of a 100 year old case is irrelevant as the merits of the case aren't the basis of its use in current cases....its its use as precedent that forms that basis.

Sure, it would be nice for them to try and correct bad precedent as USSCs have done in the past, Or perhaps they could consider it in weighing a solution,.. whatever.

Federal courts don't 'correct precedent' because they create no binding precedent. Their rulings apply only to the cases they are hearing. Only the USSC creates binding precedent. And they have in an 8 to 1 ruling. You disagree with it.

So what? What possible relevance does your agreement or disagreement with a century old case have with any outcome of any case being argued today?

Absolutely nothing.

I brought up 'ex parte young' also to show hypocrisy of their "reasoning" on standing. Recent "reasoning" that it would be very wise of them to overrule. Sotomayor agrees with me, and so should anyone not wholly absorbed in one issue and one issue alone. People need to step back and see the dangers these cases will cause in other areas and get past a narrow-minded "win" on one issue.

Sotomayor never even mentions 'ex Parte Young'. The case she's referring to is from 1987. She doesn't 'agree with you' on this point, as she doesn't even mention the point you've raised.

And worse, your logic is skewed. As you're using the existence of a dissenting opinion as proof that the majority opinion is invalid. Um, that's not how it works. Using your logic, only unanimous opinions could hope to be valid. And that's never been the threshold of legal validity in our system of law. The majority is.

So not only are you rejecting the very concept of stare decisis you're rejecting the legitimacy of majority rulings. Both of which are little more than rhetorical masturbation, as they have no outcome on actual cases for the simple reason that no court will ignore either principle just because you do.

I'm speaking of actual precedent, actual court cases, actual judicial authority and actual outcomes. Not your 'its only legitimate if I agree with it' nonsense that has zero relevance to the outcome of any court case. As no judge is going to base their ruling on your agreement. Or ignore century old precedent because you disagree.

 

[Skylar]

[
Sigh, I didnt think you'd be able to. Rehashed verbal sophistry.

I'm not "demanding" the the courts abandon precedent. This is a message board, a forum for debate. Im saying their so-called "precedent" is total bullshit. Sure, it would be nice for them to try and correct bad precedent as USSCs have done in the past, Or perhaps they could consider it in weighing a solution,.. whatever.

I brought up 'ex parte young' also to show hypocrisy of their "reasoning" on standing. Recent "reasoning" that it would be very wise of them to overrule. Sotomayor agrees with me, and so should anyone not wholly absorbed in one issue and one issue alone. People need to step back and see the dangers these cases will cause in other areas and get past a narrow-minded "win" on one issue.

Stare Decisis is largely just an excuse to ignore the logic of the law when the judges personal feelings are inline with a case based on a mistake of the past.

There are other problems with the lower court ruling on prop 8 that I think The USSC court maybe seeing. Glaringly just the obvious common sense truth that the 14th amendment does not address sexual identity and was plainly meant to address racial issues only.

The Utah case is also a glimmer of hope as Silhouette outlines well.

Why thank you! Don't you think at the very least that the six states that make up the jurisdiction of the 10th circuit must also default to the civil rights of their voters? After all, in issuing the stay, the SCOTUS effectively overruled the 10th's denial of the stay.

No, they didn't. As in California the attorney general hasn't made any petition to stay the implementation of gay marriage. And the courts have ruled, explicitly, that only the State's attorneys general have the authority to seek such a stay. Making the 'overruling' of a stay that doesn't exist an impossibility. You've imagined the non-existent 'stay' requested by California.

Worse, the petition granted to Utah affects only Utah unless the USSC says otherwise. It has made no such statement. You've imagined it too.

Once again, you're insisting that your imagination become binding precedent. And that dog won't hunt.

And the 10th's reach is not just Utah. It also includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma & Wyoming any one of those states voters' should have now an excellent chance at standing to have their civil right to uphold their vote protected in an emergency appeal to SCOTUS. In all those states any one of the voters would have standing to have their marriage laws upheld in the interim.

The USSC hasn't said anything you just did. You've made that up, pulled straight from your imagination.

Worse, the courts have already found that the people play no role in the enforcement of law after voting. Nixing your 'any citizen can sue' nonsense, which has been explicitly contradicted.

The people of California and the people of Utah have the *exact* same representation: their attorneys general. So issues of representation under the law aren't an issue. And each of the attorney's general has the authority to pursue gay marriage legislation enforcement as they see fit. Nixing either from exercising any unlawful authority. The attorney general of California chose, as a litigant, not to pursue any further action regarding the law.

The attorney general of Utah chose to pursue litigation.

The voters in both cases have the same degree of representation with that representation exercising the same degree of authority. There's no protected class being discriminated against. There's no basis of harm. There's no claim of the use of unlawful authority by either attorney general. Nixing even the hypothetical possibility of the 'overruling' you've spoken of.

And finally, the courts have already ruled on Prop 8, with the finding that it was unconstitutional going all the way to the USSC and remaining intact and enforceable. Prop 8 remains illegal in California, and no part of it can be enforced per the ruling of the federal judiciary.

Once again, you're just layers and layers of wrong.

One mistake of the past is California and saying that neither registered voters nor a county clerk have standing to seek redress to enforce the power of the state's initiative system while rogue officials charged with representing them at the federal level are systematically and seditiously dismantling initiative law without permission from voters.

Wrong again. The state officials are completely within their authority per the federal judiciary. That you don't like the rulings doesn't change them. And applying random labels such as 'rogue' doesn't change that they're acting within the law.

Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Which means its not the law.

And once again you use the term 'sedition' with no comprehension of its meaning, nor accuracy in application. You're just tossing the term around as a generic pejorative. Which is meaningless.

 

[Silhouette]

further, IF a federal court allows private parties to oppose a state law in federal court under the dubious process of ex-parte young, then surely 7million voters should also be allowed standing.

These are private parties harmed by the law. Of course they'll have standing. The 'friends of Prop 8' have no standing as they have no harm, nor role in the enforcement of those laws. The State of California has a role in enforcement, and thus standing. And like any litigant, can choose what action to take on litigation they are a party to. In this case, the State of California choose to take no action.

This choice doesn't suddenly pass enforcement authority to individual citizens. They still play no role in enforcement. Leaving actual harm by the law the only remaining basis of standing.

An individual citizen may enforce his or her constitutional civil right to have their democratically-cast vote count. Oh yes they can. Their lawsuit and appeal of their civil right being suppressed is the enforcement they enjoy.

 

[Skylar]

An individual citizen may enforce his or her constitutional civil right to have their democratically-cast vote count. Oh yes they can.

Their vote did count. The law they passed was simply found to be unconstitutional by the federal judiciary. There is no right of the people to vote for a law that abrogates the rights of minorities. You've imagined it and ignore the court's actual ruling.

The courts have never found the ruling that prop 8 was unconstitutional robs any citizen of their right to vote. But instead found that individuals have no standing to sue on behalf of the proposition. Explicitly contrary to your assumptions. The citizens of both states had representation; their state attorney general. The representation of both attorneys general had the authority to make the decisions they did.

You've ignored the federal ruling finding prop 8 is unconstitutional. Your willful ignorance in no way affects the ruling's authority or prop 8's unconstitutionality in California. Prop 8 remains illegal to implement in CA.

Their lawsuit and appeal of their civil right being suppressed is the enforcement they enjoy.

Save of course, there's no suppression. They voted without interference. The law they voted for was simply unconstitutional according to the federal judiciary. A ruling that went all the way to the USSC and remained intact and enforceable.

Your refusal to acknowledge that ruling doesn't magically make it disappear.

 

[Silhouette]

An individual citizen may enforce his or her constitutional civil right to have their democratically-cast vote count. Oh yes they can.

Their vote did count. The law they passed was simply found to be unconstitutional by the federal judiciary. There is no right of the people to vote for a law that abrogates the rights of minorities. You've imagined it and ignore the court's actual ruling.

The courts have never found the ruling that prop 8 was unconstitutional robs any citizen of their right to vote. But instead found that individuals have no standing to sue on behalf of the proposition. Explicitly contrary to your assumptions. The citizens of both states had representation; their state attorney general. The representation of both attorneys general had the authority to make the decisions they did.

You've ignored the federal ruling finding prop 8 is unconstitutional. Your willful ignorance in no way affects the ruling's authority or prop 8's unconstitutionality in California. Prop 8 remains illegal to implement in CA...

So I have three questions for you:

1. Which court is higher in authority; the 10th circuit, the 9th circuit or the US Supreme Court?

2. What did the US Supreme Court say most recently about a state's right to keep their one man/one woman marriage law intact in the interim while appeals are pending?

3. Is the US Supreme Court allowed to treat different states differently within the 50?
a. In the long term?
b. In the short term?


If you answer "no" to question 3(a) and "yes" to question 3(b), please explain in detail your reasoning as to why the difference.


Thanks.

 

[Skylar]

1. Which court is higher in authority; the 10th circuit, the 9th circuit or the US Supreme Court?

As you well know each court has authority over the cases its hearing. So you'd have to tell me which case you're referring to before I could tell you who has higher authority. In the case of Prop 8, the 9th is the higher authority. The 10th has no jurisdiction at all.

What did the US Supreme Court say most recently about a state's right to keep their one man/one woman marriage law intact in the interim while appeals are pending?

They referred the case to the full court without comment:

The stay was granted Friday after Justice Sonia Sotomayor referred the state's petition to the full court. It will remain in place pending a decision on the case in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Supreme Court issues stay in Utah gay marriage recognition case | Deseret News

Thus, they said nothing.

Is the US Supreme Court allowed to treat different states differently within the 50?
a. In the long term?

No.

b. In the short term?

Yes. A stay would apply only to the State that petitioned it until the court has reached a full decision unless the court says otherwise. The court has never extended the stay to any state save the one it that requested it: Utah.

The problem with your assumptions being....the courts aren't treating the states' differently. The same standards apply to both states for a viable petition for a stay of implementation: a submission by the State Attorneys General. The States have responded differently, with the Utah AG requesting a stay and the California AG declining to do so.

The same standards apply to both states. The difference in outcome is the choices of the litigants, not the rulings of the justices.

I've answered your questions. Now you answer mine:

1) Where in Windsor does the USSC ever say that state laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional. Or even mentions the constitutionality of such laws. Quote it.

2) Has Perry v. Brown ever been overturned?

3) Is Proposition 8 constitutional in California today?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is ducking the answer to "Their lawsuit and appeal of their civil right being suppressed is the enforcement they enjoy."

Skylar schools Sil with, "Save of course, there's no suppression. They voted without interference. The law they voted for was simply unconstitutional according to the federal judiciary. A ruling that went all the way to the USSC and remained intact and enforceable. // Your refusal to acknowledge that ruling doesn't magically make it disappear."

 

[Silhouette]

I've answered your questions. Now you answer mine:

1) Where in Windsor does the USSC ever say that state laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional. Or even mentions the constitutionality of such laws. Quote it.

2) Has Perry v. Brown ever been overturned?

3) Is Proposition 8 constitutional in California today?

1. United States v. Windsor

OPINION

page 17: “[T]he states,at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

page 18: "The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”...The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism

page 14: Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws of New York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples who wanted to affirm their commitment to one another before their children, their family, their friends, and their community. And so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage... After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States...

page 19: In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.

2. Yes, when SCOTUS ruled that Utah's identical law deserved recognition in the interimn [a stay/overrule on the 10ths refusal to acknowledge Utah's law]. That's the precise moment Perry v Brown was overturned...if you accept that SCOTUS rules all 50 states fairly on the same exact question of law [duly enacted state laws defining marriage as "between one man and one woman"]

3. Yes, Proposition 8 is constitutional PARTICULARLY in California because not only does #2 give it validity now in the interim, because of the "fair to all 50 states principle", but California's constitution on initiative law, Article II, Section 10(c) says that in order to change Proposition 8, which is now valid in the interim, the voters themselves have to enact a new law that repeals it.

 

[Skylar]

I've answered your questions. Now you answer mine:

1) Where in Windsor does the USSC ever say that state laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional. Or even mentions the constitutionality of such laws. Quote it.

2) Has Perry v. Brown ever been overturned?

3) Is Proposition 8 constitutional in California today?

1. United States v. Windsor

OPINION

page 17: “[T]he states,at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

page 18: "The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”...The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism

page 14: Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws of New York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples who wanted to affirm their commitment to one another before their children, their family, their friends, and their community. And so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage... After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States...

page 19: In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.

The portion of the Windsor you've offered doesn't say that gay marriage bans by the state are constitutional. Or even address the constitutionality of such state bans. So can you offer us the passage in Windsor where the USSC says this?

Either you can or you can't.

2. Yes, when SCOTUS ruled that Utah's identical law deserved recognition in the interimn [a stay/overrule on the 10ths refusal to acknowledge Utah's law]. That's the precise moment Perry v Brown was overturned...if you accept that SCOTUS rules all 50 states fairly on the same exact question of law [duly enacted state laws defining marriage as "between one man and one woman"]

Then show us where the USSC says that the Perry ruling is overturned. Or even mentions Prop 8 in their granting of a stay to the State of Utah on the implementation of gay marriage. Or even mentions that the stay applies to any State but Utah. Or even mentions California.

You can't. The USSC has said none of these things. You imagined it. And your imagination doesn't overturn any ruling.

3. Yes, Proposition 8 is constitutional PARTICULARLY in California because not only does #2 give it validity now in the interim, because of the "fair to all 50 states principle", but California's constitution on initiative law, Article II, Section 10(c) says that in order to change Proposition 8, which is now valid in the interim, the voters themselves have to enact a new law that repeals it.

[/quote]

Then you'll find it remarkably easy to show us where in granting the stay of implementation of gay marriage the USSC said any of that. Or applied the stay to any state other than Utah. Or made any mention of Prop 8 in the stay, or mentioned California at all.

Again, you can't. The USSC has never said any such thing.

You're citing your imagination once again. And your imagination has no legal relevance.

 

[Silhouette]

I've answered your questions. Now you answer mine:

1) Where in Windsor does the USSC ever say that state laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional. Or even mentions the constitutionality of such laws. Quote it.

2) Has Perry v. Brown ever been overturned?

3) Is Proposition 8 constitutional in California today?

1. United States v. Windsor

OPINION

page 17: “[T]he states,at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce. . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”

page 18: "The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.”...The State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance in this case quite apart from principles of federalism

page 14: Slowly at first and then in rapid course, the laws of New York came to acknowledge the urgency of this issue for same-sex couples who wanted to affirm their commitment to one another before their children, their family, their friends, and their community. And so New York recognized same-sex marriages performed elsewhere; and then it later amended its own marriage laws to permit same-sex marriage... After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution. By history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage, as will be discussed in more detail, has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States...

page 19: In acting first to recognize and then to allow same-sex marriages, New York was responding “to the initiative of those who [sought] a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times.” Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 9). These actions were without doubt a proper exercise of its sovereign authority within our federal system, all in the way that the Framers of the Constitution intended.

The portion of the Windsor you've offered doesn't say that gay marriage bans by the state are constitutional. Or even address the constitutionality of such state bans. So can you offer us the passage in Windsor where the USSC says this?

Either you can or you can't.

2. Yes, when SCOTUS ruled that Utah's identical law deserved recognition in the interimn [a stay/overrule on the 10ths refusal to acknowledge Utah's law]. That's the precise moment Perry v Brown was overturned...if you accept that SCOTUS rules all 50 states fairly on the same exact question of law [duly enacted state laws defining marriage as "between one man and one woman"]

Then show us where the USSC says that the Perry ruling is overturned. Or even mentions Prop 8 in their granting of a stay to the State of Utah on the implementation of gay marriage. Or even mentions that the stay applies to any State but Utah. Or even mentions California.

You can't. The USSC has said none of these things. You imagined it. And your imagination doesn't overturn any ruling.

3. Yes, Proposition 8 is constitutional PARTICULARLY in California because not only does #2 give it validity now in the interim, because of the "fair to all 50 states principle", but California's constitution on initiative law, Article II, Section 10(c) says that in order to change Proposition 8, which is now valid in the interim, the voters themselves have to enact a new law that repeals it.

Then you'll find it remarkably easy to show us where in granting the stay of implementation of gay marriage the USSC said any of that. Or applied the stay to any state other than Utah. Or made any mention of Prop 8 in the stay, or mentioned California at all.

Again, you can't. The USSC has never said any such thing.

You're citing your imagination once again. And your imagination has no legal relevance.

1. The Opinion talks about how New York involved its voters and via their lengthy and comprehensive decision they decided to make gay marriage legal "in the way the Framers of the Constitution Intended"

If challenged, law will default to that preference if state law allows an initiative system like Prop 8. Initiative law is dominant law in California.

2. SCOTUS doesn't need to state it. A good lawyer can. That's how law is tested. That's my point.

3. Again, lawyers argue with premises and precedent. The SCOTUS has set both for Prop 8 to be enforced by its voters.