Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=-


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/11/2013 5:02:23 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		The southern states tried to ignore Loving. They lost. The southern states tried to ignore Brown. They lost. Some officials tried to pretend that Lawrence only applied to gay men in Texas. They lost. Illinois tried to ignore Heller and McDonald. They lost. Others states have tried to ignore Miranda, Garner, the Bill of Rights, and so forth using Jim Crow... they always lose.

Why? Because the Court has consistently held that no state can give an American citizen less rights than the federal government does.
And the federal government now gives all American citizens the right to a same sex marriage license in any state that wants to issue it. It is a fundamental right from this day forward.

All your handwaving, spin, and denail isn't going to make that go away.

The 'clever' notion that states can take away a legally valid marriage from another state because there is part of a federal law left on the books, is not going to fly. DOMA is toothless. The states get to choose for themselves, per the exact words in the majority opinion that you keep pretending don't exist.






quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Completely and utterly misstating the actual rulings

One last time. The Court refused to hear the Prop 8 case because the anti-gay marriage petitioners had no standing. Its over, its done.

In Windsor, the Court very specifically declared that the right of each state to allow same sex marriages was inviolate. That issue was federal benefits, but all 50 states have to offer the same protections, or more. Any state in America that tries to overrule another state's sovereignty is going to get bitch slapped in federal court, just as happened after Brown, Loving, Lawrence, Heller etc.

If Texas tries to take away the legally married status of a couple who moves there from California, by arresting them for co-habitation, or taking their children, or saying they can't file taxes jointly, *or* manage their joint assets in probate, divorce, etc. they will lose in federal court.

You can argue and deny until you are blue in the face, the Court has made the law of the land exactly what it is, and no amount of spin is going to dial that back.

One more time,

DOMA has two parts.
Section 2 says that no state has to recognize a same sex marriage performed in another jurisdiction. This part was not challenger by Windsor v US and therefore remains in effect.
Section 3 says that the federal government will not recognize same sex marriages performed in jurisdictions where it is legal. That is what Windsor was about and it was struck down.

If you get same sex married somewhere that that is legal and move to Texas, the federal government has to treat you as married but the state of Texas does not and until someone challenges section 2 at the Supreme Court or it gets repealed that is the way it is.

Check with your local state government if you don't believe it. or read the wiki article I linked or read any of the fine news articles that say the same thing. Like this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/06/same-sex-couples-marriage-discrimination-doma



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/11/2013 5:23:20 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

All your handwaving, spin, and denail isn't going to make that go away.

I'm not sure why you're applying these pejoratives to DK, especially since he's a longtime supporter of marriage equality and justice for LGBT people.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/11/2013 5:43:46 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		Not the issue.

I'm a longtime, vehement activist and vocal supporter of equal rights for minorities, be they racial, sexual religious, economic, or whatever, too.

The point of contention is that the Court's ruling would make it futile for Texas, Pennsylvania, or any other state that chooses not to issue SSM licenses, to arrest, prosecute or persecute people who got legally married in another state and subsequently enter the anti state.

I've been very clear and very specific. When (not if) a same sex family moves, no matter what the remnants of DOMA say, Texas/Penn et al. cannot take their children away, cannot put them in jail for having a fraudulent license, or take away their joint property, accounts, burials, wills, etc.
This is crystal clear in the exact words of the ruling I cited If the feds can't do it, the states can't..

DK denies that I'm correct all of this, arguing the opposite... that the state of Texas can put a SSM California family in jail by citing DOMA.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but that ain't gonna happen as long as there is a federal bench and US Marshalls .





quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

All your handwaving, spin, and denail isn't going to make that go away.

I'm not sure why you're applying these pejoratives to DK, especially since he's a longtime supporter of marriage equality and justice for LGBT people.



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/11/2013 6:13:07 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

This is crystal clear in the exact words of the ruling I cited If the feds can't do it, the states can't..

Which words from the ruling did you cite? I can't find them in the thread, and I'd love to read them. I'm pretty sure I still have my Windsor printout around here somewhere.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/11/2013 6:32:53 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		Really? And it doesn't contain the words:
quote:

Marriage laws may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each State.
DOMA rejects this long-established precept. The State’s decision to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a dignity and status of immense import... (b)
By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect,DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413
U.
S. 528, 534–535. DOMA cannot survive under these principles. Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state law. DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf


Note that it names DOMA as an entity, not limited to a sub-section.


There's nothing to argue here, they were beyond explicit. Not striking down the other sections because that remedy wasn't asked for, means nothing in the face of dicta like the above.
DOMA is effectively dead.


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

This is crystal clear in the exact words of the ruling I cited If the feds can't do it, the states can't..

Which words from the ruling did you cite? I can't find them in the thread, and I'd love to read them. I'm pretty sure I still have my Windsor printout around here somewhere.



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/11/2013 7:11:51 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

And it doesn't contain the words:

Strictly speaking, those were from the syllabus, not the actual opinion.

The bottom line--literally--of Kennedy's opinion is this: "The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed."

That raises the question of what the Court of Appeals decided. Its bottom line appears to be the following: "DOMA's classification of same-sex spouses was not substantially related to an important government interest. Accordingly, we hold that Section 3 of DOMA violates equal protection and is therefore unconstitutional" (source).

I'm neither a lawyer nor a constitutional scholar, but it does strike me as an honest question whether Windsor struck down DOMA in its evil entirety or simply dispatched Section 3. The explicitly affirmed ruling was limited to Section 3, but as you noted, Kennedy discussed DOMA without any qualification.

To see what others made of this, I took a look at the NYT story on the decision. It said, "The rulings leave in place laws banning same-sex marriage around the nation, and the court declined to say whether there was a constitutional right to such unions." I also dropped by the ACLU site to see how they view things. I was greeted by the words "On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that section three of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) is unconstitutional and that the federal government cannot discriminate against married lesbian and gay couples for the purposes of determining federal benefits and protections."

I figured Lambda Legal might also have a good handle on what Windsor means. Its DOMA summary begins, "The Supreme Court’s historic ruling striking down Section 3 of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an enormous victory for loving, married couples and their families, and affirms that they deserve equal treatment under the law. This victory demonstrates the importance of access to marriage, and gives married same-sex couples access to the tangible benefits of the federal safety net, allowing them to better protect one another and their children."

It also includes a lengthy cautionary note that starts, "If you live in a state that discriminates against married same-sex couples, you should be aware that the Supreme Court decision striking down part of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act does NOT mean that your state must respect your marriage or that you will be eligible for all marriage-based federal benefits." The note later goes on to say, "In addition, if you travel to another place to marry and then return to live in a state that does not respect your marriage, you may be unfairly unable to obtain a divorce, which can lead to serious negative legal and financial consequences."

All this to say that while I'd keenly love to put on my ruby slippers and sing, "Ding! Dong! The DOMA's dead! The wicked DOMA's dead!," I fear it might, alas, be premature.


_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/11/2013 7:40:38 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

But arguing pointlessly, you are.

That's for damn sure. No facts, no citations, no sources will ever pierce the emotional armor of one who needs to be right at any cost, to the point of hurling insults (DK's a denier; yours truly, a gay man, is secretly in league with homophobes) when he can't carry the day with reasoned discussion.

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/11/2013 8:26:59 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

The bottom line--literally--of Kennedy's opinion is this: "The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed."


That is in his link.... pg 26. What it holds includes the dissenting opinion as well. The case itself mentions only section 3.

The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in
2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor.
Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, but was barred from doing so by §3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which amended the Dictionary Act—a
law providing rules of construction for over 1,000 federal laws and
the whole realm of federal regulations—to define “marriage” and
“spouse” as excluding same-sex partners.

That is all they could address in this case. The state recognition will be next. I do know that PA's AG has said she will not defend the gay marriage ban in this state. Its a losing battle to even try.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/11/2013 8:57:54 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		I don't get it.

The majority opinion says it was only section 3. Every news article and every organization concerned with the case says its only section 3. What more would it take to convince this guy?

Here's a Constitutional law professor from Arkansas saying so:
http://www.katv.com/story/22697544/law-professor-scotus-doma-decision-does-not-affect-arkansas

Maybe a press release from an Arkansas Christian right group will do it?
http://nwahomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=440442



< Message edited by DomKen -- 7/11/2013 8:58:09 PM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/11/2013 9:06:20 PM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

That is correct. I am gay/bi. I've been at more equal rights rallies over the last 45 years (I started protest marches/sit ins the mid 60s), than many people.



dcnovice is also gay.



_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/11/2013 9:22:24 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

That is correct. I am gay/bi. I've been at more equal rights rallies over the last 45 years (I started protest marches/sit ins the mid 60s), than many people.

So disregard the smirking bullshit from some of the trolls here that I'm some kind of anti-gay neo con racist that they promote to shout down my standing up for the truth, namely that same sex couples can get married in those states where it is legal, and they can travel anywhere in the country, just as the Supreme Court said.

Those who have a problem with minorities are blatantly obvious in their game playing.


First... I cant tell what side of the coin you are on. The SC didnt strike down the state recognition part of the law... only the Federal recognition part.

States can still not recognize other states same sex marriages.

And we have known Dcnovice to be gay for a long time. For you to attack him the way you did was rather.... hysterical.

From your profile, one would never guess you were bi/gay. ~shrugs~ not that it matters

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/11/2013 9:24:38 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		There is nothing to 'get'. You can cut and paste from the lawyers at Westboro, or directly from StormFront itself for all I care. Your faith in Arkansas doesn't trump the Supreme Court.

I've already repeatedly posted the exact words of the US Supreme Court... 'DOMA fails'. Nothing about only one section... DOMA fails, followed by explanation after explanation as to why its very premise is unconstitutional. I've already explained to you more than once that they made no specific ruling on the other sections because that wasn't requested in the first place. So they granted specific relief and added a pile of dicta that sealed DOMA's fate. It cannot prevail in federal court while those dicta stand.

One more time in case you can't see for some reason... 'DOMA fails' signed 'Love ya... The Supremes'.

The Court is right, you and your right wing Arkansas Christian sources are wrong.



quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I don't get it.

The majority opinion says it was only section 3. Every news article and every organization concerned with the case says its only section 3. What more would it take to convince this guy?

Here's a Constitutional law professor from Arkansas saying so:
http://www.katv.com/story/22697544/law-professor-scotus-doma-decision-does-not-affect-arkansas

Maybe a press release from an Arkansas Christian right group will do it?
http://nwahomepage.com/fulltext?nxd_id=440442





_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/12/2013 2:47:23 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

There is nothing to 'get'. You can cut and paste from the lawyers at Westboro, or directly from StormFront itself for all I care. Your faith in Arkansas doesn't trump the Supreme Court.

I've already repeatedly posted the exact words of the US Supreme Court... 'DOMA fails'. Nothing about only one section... DOMA fails, followed by explanation after explanation as to why its very premise is unconstitutional. I've already explained to you more than once that they made no specific ruling on the other sections because that wasn't requested in the first place. So they granted specific relief and added a pile of dicta that sealed DOMA's fate. It cannot prevail in federal court while those dicta stand.

One more time in case you can't see for some reason... 'DOMA fails' signed 'Love ya... The Supremes'.

The Court is right, you and your right wing Arkansas Christian sources are wrong.


Try reading the actual opinion not the syllabus. The syllabus is not binding. It is a short non technical version of the opinion.

At the end of the actual opinion it says the decision of the lower appellate court stands. That lower court only over turned section 3. so that is all SCOTUS overturned. You will not find any legal scholar or organization supporting gay rights that says otherwise.

I've presented the Court's actual decision, I've presented multiple other sources saying it was only section 3. Now you're attacking me for trying to use sources from where you live?

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/12/2013 3:41:33 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Biggest lack of comprehension ive seen in five years, and that is saying something.....just fucking amazing eh.???


lol... guess if a profile states a man is gay, he is making it up... but if a profile doesnt even mention it, and clearly indicates he is looking specifically for women, we are supposed to infer that means he is bi/gay?

I prefer the Drum Line better!

Especially as DC stated his sexuality in post 100.
But hey it stopped his miserable meanderings so it wasnt a complete waste of time.

As for the Drumline....I had never seen that before...very cool, and apt:)

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/12/2013 9:22:38 AM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		You and Baby Jesus will just have to keep on weeping.

*You* posted that link where you used Mike Huckabee as your proof that DOMA is still in force. You bragged about giving a right wing Christian site as your proof. Do you seriously think anyone falls for you denying it a few posts later, when they can scroll up see who posted what??

Or are you just so outraged that the Court struck down DOMA, and gay people can actually get married now, that you will simply keep on flooding the threads with neo-con nonsense in frustration?


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

There is nothing to 'get'. You can cut and paste from the lawyers at Westboro, or directly from StormFront itself for all I care. Your faith in Arkansas doesn't trump the Supreme Court.

I've already repeatedly posted the exact words of the US Supreme Court... 'DOMA fails'. Nothing about only one section... DOMA fails, followed by explanation after explanation as to why its very premise is unconstitutional. I've already explained to you more than once that they made no specific ruling on the other sections because that wasn't requested in the first place. So they granted specific relief and added a pile of dicta that sealed DOMA's fate. It cannot prevail in federal court while those dicta stand.

One more time in case you can't see for some reason... 'DOMA fails' signed 'Love ya... The Supremes'.

The Court is right, you and your right wing Arkansas Christian sources are wrong.


Try reading the actual opinion not the syllabus. The syllabus is not binding. It is a short non technical version of the opinion.

At the end of the actual opinion it says the decision of the lower appellate court stands. That lower court only over turned section 3. so that is all SCOTUS overturned. You will not find any legal scholar or organization supporting gay rights that says otherwise.

I've presented the Court's actual decision, I've presented multiple other sources saying it was only section 3. Now you're attacking me for trying to use sources from where you live?



< Message edited by Powergamz1 -- 7/12/2013 10:01:21 AM >

_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/12/2013 10:00:25 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		o they granted specific relief and added a pile of dicta that sealed DOMA's fate.


...............................................

I will point out that obiter dicta is nothing more than watery moonbeams and means absolutely nothing, I don't give a fuck if there is a passle of piles of it.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/12/2013 10:04:30 AM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		I believe you. In fact I'm certain that you find the use of dicta in decisions like Miranda, Heller, Lawrence, etc. to be utterly irrelevant.

Not everyone agrees.

'DOMA fails'


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

o they granted specific relief and added a pile of dicta that sealed DOMA's fate.


...............................................

I will point out that obiter dicta is nothing more than watery moonbeams and means absolutely nothing, I don't give a fuck if there is a passle of piles of it.



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/12/2013 10:09:57 AM   
VideoAdminChi


Posts: 3086
Joined: 8/6/2012
Status: offline 		FR,

Several posts have been removed. Let's get back to the topic, please.

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/12/2013 10:13:58 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Remarks of a judge which are not necessary to reaching a decision, but are made as comments, illustrations or thoughts.


^^^^That's the legal definition.

A judge may go on to speculate about what his decision would or might have been if the facts of the case had been different. This is an obiter dictum.

The binding part of a judicial decision is the ratio decidendi. An obiter dictum is not binding in later cases because it was not strictly relevant to the matter in issue in the original case. However, an obiter dictum may be of persuasive (as opposed to binding) authority in later cases.

But because some judge thought that, does not necessarily mean that another judge follows the same thoughts. It is meaningless legally. On the other hand a judge may like the comments and draw conclusions along the same line.

Hey, it was raining that day......I see where you are going with this, I judge that it might rain another day.
Hey, it was raining that day......that does not mean that it is gonna rain today.

Yanno, en passant, obiter dicta, off the cuff, tatting in the tweeds, filling up space in the homework assignment.


IN PASSING.


< Message edited by mnottertail -- 7/12/2013 10:14:18 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within ... - 7/12/2013 10:21:48 AM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		All quite correct. Especially the part about persuasive authority. Obiter dicta is also a way for the Court to send a message on issues not directly requested in the case before them.

You know, like Lawrence, where they were only asked to throw out one arrest and conviction, but they en passant, obiter dicta, off the cuff, tatting in the tweeds, added in that minor and unimportant bit about the government having no business in the bedrooms of consenting adults?

And of course, right after Lawrence I heard the same 'that's only dicta' drum beat.

BTW... how many sustained convictions for consensual adult private sex have been brought under the still on the books local sodomy statutes since then?


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Remarks of a judge which are not necessary to reaching a decision, but are made as comments, illustrations or thoughts.


^^^^That's the legal definition.

A judge may go on to speculate about what his decision would or might have been if the facts of the case had been different. This is an obiter dictum.

The binding part of a judicial decision is the ratio decidendi. An obiter dictum is not binding in later cases because it was not strictly relevant to the matter in issue in the original case. However, an obiter dictum may be of persuasive (as opposed to binding) authority in later cases.

But because some judge thought that, does not necessarily mean that another judge follows the same thoughts. It is meaningless legally. On the other hand a judge may like the comments and draw conclusions along the same line.

Hey, it was raining that day......I see where you are going with this, I judge that it might rain another day.
Hey, it was raining that day......that does not mean that it is gonna rain today.

Yanno, en passant, obiter dicta, off the cuff, tatting in the tweeds, filling up space in the homework assignment.


IN PASSING.




_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: -=Cali leads the pack, same sex marriage OK within 48 hours of Supreme Court DOMA strike down=- Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109