[redmenace]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041129/D86LJT8G0.html

I actually think the Supreme Court made the right, decision. Really, this is a divisive issue and I am not sure that a public court case over the issue would be wise with the current state of affairs. Additionally, this doesn't belong in the Supreme Court. This is a state's right issue. Only way this ever could be brought to the supreme court is under the principle of interstate commerce. Silly conservatives.

[aldo_14]

Isn't this an nationwide issue RE Supreme Court involvement?  I'd have thought a ruling that would affect the human rights of a group of society would have to be made by the highest court, and encompass the whole country.

[redmenace]

There is some question of whether this is a federal issue. With Renquist sick they might not want to take the case. But again, the brief was screwy. It wouldn't warrant federal involvement according to the argument.

[Kazan]

it's a federal issue - because any state statued that deny's gays equal rights is a violation of the US constitution

mass. is the only state that explicitly is in ACCORDANCE with the US constitution

[redmenace]

In your opinion that is.

The issue in the brief was non existent, and didn't warrant federal involvement.

Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

[Kazan]

they court's decision in _THIS_ case is correct - i was stating more generally

they basically said "the mass court is correct/your basis for appeal is bs"

[redmenace]

A rejection is not a determination of whether the lower court or courts where right or wrong in anyway. It means that they don't want to hear the case. But, they might not want to hear it for a number of reasons. Such as they are sure there will be a better case involving the issue. They might not want to take it because they personally want to shy away from overturning 11 state constitutional admendments. They might want to wait for Renquist. I am sure there personal bias plays a role although they should strive to not have that be the case. And of course they might think the appeal is BS which I believe is the case in this situation.

[Grey Wolf]

Did anyone else notice that it was a Florida group trying to change Massachusetts law?