Prop 8 Showdown

[Rinata]

I could careless what happens in Cailfornia this is a state issue. But what bugs the shit out of me is when the activist from Cailifornia will push this issue on my state.

Oh, why?? What are you so afraid of?? People like you are so friggin' irritating. If you don't want to marry the same sex, then don't. But if your neighbor does, it's none of your damn business. Then you have the nerve to accuse Californians of pushing the issue on your state??? What do you think you are doing???

 

[ConHog]

I could careless what happens in Cailfornia this is a state issue. But what bugs the shit out of me is when the activist from Cailifornia will push this issue on my state.

Oh, why?? What are you so afraid of?? People like you are so friggin' irritating. If you don't want to marry the same sex, then don't. But if your neighbor does, it's none of your damn business. Then you have the nerve to accuse Californians of pushing the issue on your state??? What do you think you are doing???

He's saying he wants HIS state to have their own right to decide.

 

[CurveLight]

I could careless what happens in Cailfornia this is a state issue. But what bugs the shit out of me is when the activist from Cailifornia will push this issue on my state.

Oh, why?? What are you so afraid of?? People like you are so friggin' irritating. If you don't want to marry the same sex, then don't. But if your neighbor does, it's none of your damn business. Then you have the nerve to accuse Californians of pushing the issue on your state??? What do you think you are doing???

He's saying he wants HIS state to have their own right to decide.

That's not what he's saying you ******* poser. He's saying he is an anti-American Constitution burning 1658 Witch-Hunting paranoid punk who is jealous the Saudi Royal family has the power and money to pracitice the kind street-real style bigotry he dreams about stomping others with. You clueless crotch watchers are a living example of what Americans have died fighting against for over 250 years.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I could careless what happens in Cailfornia this is a state issue. But what bugs the shit out of me is when the activist from Cailifornia will push this issue on my state.

Oh, why?? What are you so afraid of?? People like you are so friggin' irritating. If you don't want to marry the same sex, then don't. But if your neighbor does, it's none of your damn business. Then you have the nerve to accuse Californians of pushing the issue on your state??? What do you think you are doing???

He's saying he wants HIS state to have their own right to decide.

and they would not have that right because some activists come into his state to try and persuade the citizens?.....is his state supposed to be immune to this type of shit?...welcome to the real world....

 

[bodecea]

Oh, why?? What are you so afraid of?? People like you are so friggin' irritating. If you don't want to marry the same sex, then don't. But if your neighbor does, it's none of your damn business. Then you have the nerve to accuse Californians of pushing the issue on your state??? What do you think you are doing???

He's saying he wants HIS state to have their own right to decide.

and they would not have that right because some activists come into his state to try and persuade the citizens?.....is his state supposed to be immune to this type of shit?...welcome to the real world....

And that is one of the things being looked at in this trial...how Mormon activists from Utah came in with loads of money and lied about what Prop H8 would do to affect California law.

 

[lawbuff]

I don't see how Baker would prevent SCOTUS from hearing Perry, but maybe I'm missing something.

Scotus is not prevented from hearing any case that is Petitioned for Certiorari.

It takes 4 Justices to grant cert., called the Rule of 4, if they can not muster the 4, then the appeal is not worth hearing for one legal reason or another, at least to them.

Note though, as the SC has stated before, a decision not to grant certiorari, is NOT in any way a decision on the merits, such as Baker was.

We have 2 distinct discretionary reviews. Baker was a decision, albiet a Summary one, as it is called.

Appeals not granted certiorari, are NOT decisions on the merits.

This is the legal difference between the 2. The SC could have denied certiorari, or as Wikipedia calls it, mandatory review (??).

Would this be binding on the lower courts, NO.

So whether they issued a Summary decision or denied certiorari, some call it the same legal conclusion. I don't.

I might be counting my eggsalads before they hatch, but I think it's a matter of when SCOTUS will hear this case, not if.

Tuna salad is better.

As I stated, you can bet your Constitutional $$ the decision, when it is handed down, will cite Baker.

My prediction, it will be dismissed due to Baker.

The SC, if it is appealed by the loosing party, will grant certiorari to uncloud the issue, this way, Baker, if simply a guideline, if you will, will be overruled or upheld, and no question will be left.

 

[lawbuff]

But it's not that important to the analysis anyway, just an ongoing debate with a friend of mine I'm not going to give up that easily - 'cuz I'm right.

Well, technically, I could have you arrested and shut down the Mason-Dixon line.

Since you are a board friend though, I will quash any warrant that comes over my desk. This is between you and I, it is not to be posted publically.

 

[Rinata]

I could careless what happens in Cailfornia this is a state issue. But what bugs the shit out of me is when the activist from Cailifornia will push this issue on my state.

Oh, why?? What are you so afraid of?? People like you are so friggin' irritating. If you don't want to marry the same sex, then don't. But if your neighbor does, it's none of your damn business. Then you have the nerve to accuse Californians of pushing the issue on your state??? What do you think you are doing???

He's saying he wants HIS state to have their own right to decide.

You're kidding, aren't you??? This is what he's saying:

"I don't approve of being gay and will never support gay relationships, let alone gay marriage. You see, I am a pompous ass that is trying to force my will on others. I am free to choose my life partner, but I refuse to give others the same right."

 

[goldcatt]

But it's not that important to the analysis anyway, just an ongoing debate with a friend of mine I'm not going to give up that easily - 'cuz I'm right.

Well, technically, I could have you arrested and shut down the Mason-Dixon line.

Since you are a board friend though, I will quash any warrant that comes over my desk. This is between you and I, it is not to be posted publically.

Thanks, I owe you a big one! And I won't say a word.

But how'd you find out about......that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh, why?? What are you so afraid of?? People like you are so friggin' irritating. If you don't want to marry the same sex, then don't. But if your neighbor does, it's none of your damn business. Then you have the nerve to accuse Californians of pushing the issue on your state??? What do you think you are doing???

He's saying he wants HIS state to have their own right to decide.

and they would not have that right because some activists come into his state to try and persuade the citizens?.....is his state supposed to be immune to this type of shit?...welcome to the real world....

No, they would lose that right because a federal court decision would take that right away form the states and impose it upon them by decree.

 

[lawbuff]

But it's not that important to the analysis anyway, just an ongoing debate with a friend of mine I'm not going to give up that easily - 'cuz I'm right.

Well, technically, I could have you arrested and shut down the Mason-Dixon line.

Since you are a board friend though, I will quash any warrant that comes over my desk. This is between you and I, it is not to be posted publically.

Thanks, I owe you a big one! And I won't say a word.

But how'd you find out about......that?

You are not dealing with an ordinary idiot here, I'm Organized, Amalgamated Association of Morons, Local 6 7/8.

I graduated Magna Cum Lousy, 3rd in a class of 2.

Top that!!

 

[goldcatt]

As I stated, you can bet your Constitutional $$ the decision, when it is handed down, will cite Baker.

My prediction, it will be dismissed due to Baker.

The SC, if it is appealed by the loosing party, will grant certiorari to uncloud the issue, this way, Baker, if simply a guideline, if you will, will be overruled or upheld, and no question will be left.

Baker doesn't need to be overruled. That's the whole point, it's not a precedential opinion that has to be overruled to be invalid.

Let me put it this way, take an opinion. Any opinion. What are the main parts of an opinion? You have the procedural status, the recitation of facts, the analysis, the rule and the holding. The point being that an opinion analyzes the case and doesn't just give the lower court direction in the form of the holding, but sets forth a rule that is to be followed in future. It's forward looking and binding.

Now look at a summary decision, such as Baker. It's a holding. Period. As stated clearly in Mandel, there is no rule. There is nothing new. It is backward looking and simply a direction to the lower court based on the facts of that case and the law as it stands at the time. It sets forth nothing to be followed in the future, because it says nothing new.

When you read the two cases the CA SC relied on to say it was bound by Baker, you see there is a major difference between them. In Hicks, there was a CA court that was bound by a summary decision. Why? Because it was a decsion set forth the year previous, dealing with an extremely similar challenge to the same ordinance in the same municipality AND was directed to the same Court. Nothing had changed but the names. Then look at Mandel, and you'll see the DC District was in error in following a summary decision because it didn't bother to notice there was a slight difference in facts that changed the situation. The summary decision wasn't a rule that had to be followed, but a guide to how they would have ruled IF the facts were the same.

The CA SC bought a bad argument, pure and simple. Baker is a 40+ year old decision based on different facts and that was decided when the law was different. It doesn't have to be overruled to be irrelevant now, it's a backward looking tool not an opinion with precedential weight. The only reason it would be cited at all would be to clear up the confusion over the weight it does not carry.

Wanna bet that Constitutional $$?

 

[Ravi]

Hopefully Prop 8 will be struck down. Then the US can join other civilized nations in allowing marriage between same sex couples.

You have some sort of problem with democracy?

Proposition 8 was voted on by the citizens of California, and you think one man can tell them all that they don't have a right to a vote because you disagree with the result. Would you be as comfortable with it if a vote had been held and SSM approved and someone took it to court to overturn it?

We aren't a pure democracy.

The general public is not meant to vote on the rights of others.

 

[goldcatt]

Well, technically, I could have you arrested and shut down the Mason-Dixon line.

Since you are a board friend though, I will quash any warrant that comes over my desk. This is between you and I, it is not to be posted publically.

Thanks, I owe you a big one! And I won't say a word.

But how'd you find out about......that?

You are not dealing with an ordinary idiot here, I'm Organized, Amalgamated Association of Morons, Local 6 7/8.

I graduated Magna Cum Lousy, 3rd in a class of 2.

Top that!!

I can't.

 

[lawbuff]

Thanks, I owe you a big one! And I won't say a word.

But how'd you find out about......that?

You are not dealing with an ordinary idiot here, I'm Organized, Amalgamated Association of Morons, Local 6 7/8.

I graduated Magna Cum Lousy, 3rd in a class of 2.

Top that!!

I can't.

I was also in a fraternity at College, Eta bita Pi.

Here's a brain twister.

Take four 9's; 9-9-9-9, and put them in a mathematical equation to equal 100. There are 2 answers.

 

[ConHog]

you are not dealing with an ordinary idiot here, i'm organized, amalgamated association of morons, local 6 7/8.

i graduated magna cum lousy, 3rd in a class of 2.

Top that!!

i can't.

i was also in a fraternity at college, eta bita pi.

Here's a brain twister.

Take four 9's; 9-9-9-9, and put them in a mathematical equation to equal 100. There are 2 answers.

9/9 + 99 =100

 

[lawbuff]

Here's a brain twister.

Take four 9's; 9-9-9-9, and put them in a mathematical equation to equal 100. There are 2 answers.

9/9 + 99 =100

Wow, that was good and fast, but there is still another solution.

 

[EriktheRed]

I could careless what happens in Cailfornia this is a state issue. But what bugs the shit out of me is when the activist from Cailifornia will push this issue on my state.

Kinda like when activists from Utah were pushing thier values on California, eh?

 

[ConHog]

Here's a brain twister.

Take four 9's; 9-9-9-9, and put them in a mathematical equation to equal 100. There are 2 answers.

9/9 + 99 =100

Wow, that was good and fast, but there is still another solution.

I'll have to admit to being stumped for now on that. I'm doing the math now though

 

[Luissa]

I could careless what happens in Cailfornia this is a state issue. But what bugs the shit out of me is when the activist from Cailifornia will push this issue on my state.

Kinda like when activists when Utah were pushing thier values on California, eh?

When civil unions was on the ballot in Washington State, we had a group from Colorado paying for ads...