Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on June 26, 2013, 12:31:28 pm
-
So today we find that DOMA, the legislation prohibiting federal recognition of same-sex couple benefits, has been struck down after swing-vote justice Kennedy sided with the liberals on the court to kill it...
...and then Scalia, dinosaur that he is (http://www.popehat.com/2013/06/26/compare-and-contrast-justice-scalia-edition/), ended up being the apparent swing vote that killed Prop 8. What a weird day.
Anyway, cheers to another blow against bigotry and discrimination based on sexual orientation in the United States.
-
My opinion on the matter was always to abandon the institution of marriage altogether, but i guess that's not very likely, lol. Anyway, a good success for equal rights between homosexuals and heterosexuals in the US. In germany, homosexuals still can't truely marry, not in a single federated state. What a shame...
-
Scalia's dissent on DOMA is...kind of bizarre reading, especially in comparison to his earlier opinions on similar issues.
-
You know, there would have been a time in the not-very-distant past when I would have been aghast at this, but it's amazing how quickly you can come around to sensibility.
-
I'm proud of this decision.
-
I talked with my attorney father about these cases earlier today, and according to him the DOMA case never, ever should have made it past the District level since after that decision there was no further case of controversy as both parties agreed with the decision and it was only appealed to the Circuit level by an intervening party that lacked standing since they were uninjured. Plus his opinion on the majority decision was that it was a wandering mess that pulled stuff from thin air to justify itself. Oh, and I learned a key decision in overturning Prop. 8 was made by a homosexual justice, which in my opinion means he should have immediately recused himself from the case as an interested party.
I kinda want to be happy, but hearing from a more-than-competent attorney about how how the law got turned into a knot for self-interested and political purposes kinda sours my stomach.
-
Oh, and I learned a key decision in overturning Prop. 8 was made by a homosexual justice, which in my opinion means he should have immediately recused himself from the case as an interested party.
I've never heard of a Christian recusing himself on the same grounds, so why should he?
-
Oh, and I learned a key decision in overturning Prop. 8 was made by a homosexual justice, which in my opinion means he should have immediately recused himself from the case as an interested party.
I've never heard of a Christian recusing himself on the same grounds, so why should he?
Beat me to it. Half of the SCOTUS justices have strong personal opinions on homosexuality; they didn't (and shouldn't) recuse themselves either.
-
Plus his opinion on the majority decision was that it was a wandering mess that pulled stuff from thin air to justify itself.
If anything, the dissent is worse, particularly because it completely reverses the logic used to justify the decision made the day before regarding the VRA.
EDIT: I should also point out that the Supreme Court isn't really bound by precedent. One of its primary purposes is the overturning of precedent. The judicial remedy exists for the safety of the people from the government, but it also exists for the safety of the government from the people. By forcing change when the legislative branch won't act the Supreme Court helps maintain respect for the law.
-
Considering that it's called the Defence of Marriage Act, surely any married judge should also have to recuse themselves?
-
Oh, and I learned a key decision in overturning Prop. 8 was made by a homosexual justice, which in my opinion means he should have immediately recused himself from the case as an interested party.
I've never heard of a Christian recusing himself on the same grounds, so why should he?
Beat me to it. Half of the SCOTUS justices have strong personal opinions on homosexuality; they didn't (and shouldn't) recuse themselves either.
No, they probably should have due to strong personal bias against one of the parties. I don't care what side you're going to decide for. If you have any sort of personal bias in the case, I don't care how lofty your position as a judge is, recuse yourself. A judicial ruling must be as impartial as humanly possible.
Plus his opinion on the majority decision was that it was a wandering mess that pulled stuff from thin air to justify itself.
If anything, the dissent is worse, particularly because it completely reverses the logic used to justify the decision made the day before regarding the VRA.
EDIT: I should also point out that the Supreme Court isn't really bound by precedent. One of its primary purposes is the overturning of precedent. The judicial remedy exists for the safety of the people from the government, but it also exists for the safety of the government from the people. By forcing change when the legislative branch won't act the Supreme Court helps maintain respect for the law.
From the way the dissent was described to me, Scalia basically took the majority and showed how a fairly easy copy/paste job of it with a few alterations could easily be used to overturn state laws against gay marriage.
-
Oh, and I learned a key decision in overturning Prop. 8 was made by a homosexual justice, which in my opinion means he should have immediately recused himself from the case as an interested party.
I've never heard of a Christian recusing himself on the same grounds, so why should he?
Beat me to it. Half of the SCOTUS justices have strong personal opinions on homosexuality; they didn't (and shouldn't) recuse themselves either.
No, they probably should have due to strong personal bias against one of the parties. I don't care what side you're going to decide for. If you have any sort of personal bias in the case, I don't care how lofty your position as a judge is, recuse yourself. A judicial ruling must be as impartial as humanly possible.
By that standard, pretty much every judge in the country would have to recuse themselves from this case. Do you know anyone at all that doesn't have a strong conviction about same-sex marriage either way?
-
to be honest, i don't.
-
Oh, and I learned a key decision in overturning Prop. 8 was made by a homosexual justice, which in my opinion means he should have immediately recused himself from the case as an interested party.
I've never heard of a Christian recusing himself on the same grounds, so why should he?
Beat me to it. Half of the SCOTUS justices have strong personal opinions on homosexuality; they didn't (and shouldn't) recuse themselves either.
No, they probably should have due to strong personal bias against one of the parties. I don't care what side you're going to decide for. If you have any sort of personal bias in the case, I don't care how lofty your position as a judge is, recuse yourself. A judicial ruling must be as impartial as humanly possible.
By that standard, pretty much every judge in the country would have to recuse themselves from this case. Do you know anyone at all that doesn't have a strong conviction about same-sex marriage either way?
Indeed; and the point of judges in Constitutional law is not complete impartiality, anyway. The judiciary is a check and balance against th tyranny of the majority and weighs the compliance of law with the Constitution through the lens of social expectation. That is why judges routinely overturn old laws that may have previous passed some Constitutional scrutiny. The goalposts move over time.
-
A step in the right direction!
My opinion on the matter was always to abandon the institution of marriage altogether, but i guess that's not very likely, lol. Anyway, a good success for equal rights between homosexuals and heterosexuals in the US. In germany, homosexuals still can't truely marry, not in a single federated state. What a shame...
That would be the ideal position, however it isn't very practical as things are. There are over a hundred laws at the federal level alone that we would have to repeal in order to have marriage equality in such a manner, and that's not even counting state laws.