In Elegant Ruling, Carter Appointed Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage

[Steve_McGarrett]

Now this is what I'm talking about. This guy isn't a activist political correct judge overturning the will of the people. His ruling relied on the Constitution and legal precedent.


In Elegant Ruling Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage in Puerto Rico

 

[JakeStarkey]

The judge is entitled to his wrong opinion just like you Steve.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

The judge is entitled to his wrong opinion just like you Steve.

The judge ruled right. Marriage should be between a man and woman. The founders would have agreed too!

 

[Silhouette]

District judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, a Carter appointee, delivered a ruling that relied on a conservative reading of the Constitution and legal precedent, and created the potential for a split among the U.S. circuits that could prod the Supreme Court to take up the question in future...

And more. Hey Jakey, does this reasoning sound familiar? It should. You've been hearing it from me ever since Windsor was published on the net:

"In an elegant decision handed down Tuesday, Perez-Gimenez relies on two basic arguments. First, he notes that the U.S. Constitution is silent on marriage, thus reserving authority over marriage to the states--and adds that a 1972 precedent to that effect in Baker v. Nelson, which other courts have considered void, still holds. Only the Supreme Court, Perez-Gimenez says, may overturn Baker--and to this date, he notes, it has declined to do so.
Second, Perez-Gimenez notes that last year's twin rulings in the celebrated U.S. v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry do not actually void state powers to ban gay marriage. Hollingsworth v. Perry, he notes, was dealt with on procedural grounds, and though Windsor struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, it "reaffirms the States’ authority over marriage, buttressing Baker’s conclusion that marriage is simply not a federal question.""

We still haven't heard from the 6th circuit.

Well done Judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez!

Well SCOTUS? You going to keep allowing the dissolving of states laws... allowing gays and polygamists to "marry in" in the interim in violation of the Will of tens of millions of voters? Or are you going to give those tens of millions a voice in a long-overdue hearing?

 

[TheOldSchool]

I almost posted about this earlier today. I decided to wait until the appellate court overturns it.

 

[Syriusly]

Now this is what I'm talking about. This guy isn't a activist political correct judge overturning the will of the people. His ruling relied on the Constitution and legal precedent.

LOL.....so every judge- even the ones appointed by Reagan and Bush are all 'activist political correct judges'

Even so- thanks for posting this. It might have been easy to miss a ruling out of PR.

This is the first Federal judge who has ruled differently- and his reasoning is interesting- essentially he is saying that precedent prevents him from ruling otherwise.

What this difference does open the door for is a Supreme Court appeal that the Supreme Court may not be able to ignore- because now there is a legal controversy.

 

[Syriusly]

The judge is entitled to his wrong opinion just like you Steve.

The judge ruled right. Marriage should be between a man and woman. The founders would have agreed too!

Well the founders would have agreed that Marriage should be between a man and a woman of the same race.

Not a particularly compelling argument.

Meanwhile, PR same gender couples will still not allow to be married.
And in 31 states, they will.
The appeal will be interesting.
And almost inevitably go to the Supreme Court.

This could be the case that results in the Supreme Court making a decision.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Now this is what I'm talking about. This guy isn't a activist political correct judge overturning the will of the people. His ruling relied on the Constitution and legal precedent.

LOL.....so every judge- even the ones appointed by Reagan and Bush are all 'activist political correct judges'

Even so- thanks for posting this. It might have been easy to miss a ruling out of PR.

This is the first Federal judge who has ruled differently- and his reasoning is interesting- essentially he is saying that precedent prevents him from ruling otherwise.

What this difference does open the door for is a Supreme Court appeal that the Supreme Court may not be able to ignore- because now there is a legal controversy.

The supreme court will only take it up if the 1st circuit appellate court upholds the ruling. And they already struck down DOMA in 2012.

 

[Syriusly]

District judge Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, a Carter appointee, delivered a ruling that relied on a conservative reading of the Constitution and legal precedent, and created the potential for a split among the U.S. circuits that could prod the Supreme Court to take up the question in future...

And more. Hey Jakey, does this reasoning sound familiar? It should. You've been hearing it from me ever since Windsor was published on the net:

We have been hearing lots of things from you. None of it bears much semblence to legal reality.

But I will give you one thing- finally your side has one judge who has said that gay couples can't get married.

From the way things were going, I didn't think I would see that.

 

[Silhouette]

I almost posted about this earlier today. I decided to wait until the appellate court overturns it.

It sounds as if you already know what will happen. In other words, it sounds as if some judges have been purchased or blackmailed. Otherwise we would assume that judges usually balk at overturning lower verdicts that have been soundly argued.

 

[Syriusly]

I almost posted about this earlier today. I decided to wait until the appellate court overturns it.

It sounds as if you already know what will happen. In other words, it sounds as if some judges have been purchased or blackmailed. Otherwise we would assume that judges usually balk at overturning lower verdicts that have been soundly argued.

LOL- coming from the person who regularly tells us exactly how courts will rule.

Will the Appellate Court decide for or against? I don't know.

But I am certain we will see you telling us what the Appellate Court is thinking.

 

[Silhouette]

LOL- coming from the person who regularly tells us exactly how courts will rule.

Will the Appellate Court decide for or against? I don't know.

But I am certain we will see you telling us what the Appellate Court is thinking.

No, I've told you how the Supreme Court DID rule [Windsor] and how it SHOULD rule [Windsor]. Which is precisely what this judge did too.

I'm sure this will be turned over on appeal, sadly. Letting those four conservatives on SCOTUS look clean...so they think... *yawn*...what's the point in voting?

 

[TheOldSchool]

I almost posted about this earlier today. I decided to wait until the appellate court overturns it.

It sounds as if you already know what will happen. In other words, it sounds as if some judges have been purchased or blackmailed. Otherwise we would assume that judges usually balk at overturning lower verdicts that have been soundly argued.

You're nuts. I think you spend too much time hoarding photos of gay dudes.

 

[Silhouette]

TheOldSchool...maybe you have a substantive rebuttal? No? The ad hominems always pop up when the substance is lacking...

 

[TheOldSchool]

TheOldSchool...maybe you have a substantive rebuttal? No? The ad hominems always pop up when the substance is lacking...

Having been raised by Puerto Ricans and having spent a chunk of my life there I know the people on the island harbor intense prejudice against certain groups of people. That ignorance is likely a big factor in the high crime rate and floundering economy there. This Judge, while having merited his post over 30 years ago, is also a product of that ignorance and stupidity.

Make no mistake; his decision was as much based on his ideology as it was on the constitution. And that is why I'm confident his ruling will be overturned.

 

[Mr. H.]

Why should traditional marriage need to be "upheld"?

In 2008, this nation entered an era where the norm became the exception and wrong suddenly became acceptable commonplace.

To think of Obama or his administration as being any semblance of authority or makers of rule is quite simply insanity defined.

This black skinned community organizer has set our country aflame.

 

[Silhouette]

TheOldSchool...maybe you have a substantive rebuttal? No? The ad hominems always pop up when the substance is lacking...

Having been raised by Puerto Ricans and having spent a chunk of my life there I know the people on the island harbor intense prejudice against certain groups of people. That ignorance is likely a big factor in the high crime rate and floundering economy there. This Judge, while having merited his post over 30 years ago, is also a product of that ignorance and stupidity.

Make no mistake; his decision was as much based on his ideology as it was on the constitution. And that is why I'm confident his ruling will be overturned.

So now latinos are ignorant bigots? Criminals and paupers? Stupid?



Way to make friends TheOldSchool. Did you see the latino man in Fresno the other day rescue the old white dude from that house fire? While all the other "superior" white guys and gals of California's ag town ran around freaking out, that hispanic guy just calmly walked into the flames and smoke, was gone for a moment, then appeared with the old man draped over his shoulder. He just set him upright on his feet, made sure the old guy was OK, hung around for a scant minute or two and then disappeared.

What an "ignorant, bigoted, stupid, criminal begger" that hispanic guy was..

 

[TheOldSchool]

Why should traditional marriage need to be "upheld"?

In 2008, this nation entered an era where the norm became the exception and wrong suddenly became acceptable commonplace.

To think of Obama or his administration as being any semblance of authority or makers of rule is quite simply insanity defined.

This black skinned community organizer has set our country aflame.

I can think of at least one other definition "traditional marriage" used to have.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[TheOldSchool]

TheOldSchool...maybe you have a substantive rebuttal? No? The ad hominems always pop up when the substance is lacking...

Having been raised by Puerto Ricans and having spent a chunk of my life there I know the people on the island harbor intense prejudice against certain groups of people. That ignorance is likely a big factor in the high crime rate and floundering economy there. This Judge, while having merited his post over 30 years ago, is also a product of that ignorance and stupidity.

Make no mistake; his decision was as much based on his ideology as it was on the constitution. And that is why I'm confident his ruling will be overturned.

So now latinos are ignorant bigots? Criminals and paupers? Stupid?



Way to make friends TheOldSchool. Did you see the latino man in Fresno the other day rescue the old white dude from that house fire? While all the other "superior" white guys and gals of California's ag town ran around freaking out, that hispanic guy just calmly walked into the flames and smoke, was gone for a moment, then appeared with the old man draped over his shoulder. He just set him upright on his feet, made sure the old guy was OK, hung around for a scant minute or two and then disappeared.

What an "ignorant, bigoted, stupid, criminal begger" that hispanic guy was..

The judge is certainly "ignorant, bigoted, and stupid" but I'm petty sure he's not a criminal or a beggar. The rest of your post was pathetic so I won't bother with it.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- coming from the person who regularly tells us exactly how courts will rule.

Will the Appellate Court decide for or against? I don't know.

But I am certain we will see you telling us what the Appellate Court is thinking.

No, I've told you how the Supreme Court DID rule [Windsor] and how it SHOULD rule [Windsor]. Which is precisely what this judge did too.

I'm sure this will be turned over on appeal, sadly. Letting those four conservatives on SCOTUS look clean...so they think... *yawn*...what's the point in voting?

LOL...considering that you have not correctly predicted how a single court will rule....well just par for the course.