Various U.S. Supreme Court Rulings [Cur. Same Sex Marriage]

[Night Strike]

The section of DOMA that allows states to disregard marriages from other states was not struck down because it was not under question........so the state of Texas doesn't have to recognize within their state same-sex marriages from New York. The couple would still file as married in the federal government.


The Prop 8 ruling makes it illegal for voters of a state constitutional amendment to defend that vote in court if the elected officials refuse to defend it. That means that if any elected official doesn't like the law the voters enact, then they can just ignore it and let it fall in court, effectively dictating their own will against the population. That's a VERY dangerous place for the citizens to live because it means they have no control over their government.

[karel]

what was the supreme court thinking,over turning prop 8 and doma,ugh....sad day today

[AndyDufresne]

what was the supreme court thinking,over turning prop 8 and doma,ugh....sad day today

Point of order, Supreme Court didn't issue a ruling on Prop 8. They essentially said they didn't have the right to step into the fray, which sent things back down to the California's Supreme Court's ruling regarding unconstitutionality.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

The Prop 8 ruling makes it illegal for voters of a state constitutional amendment to defend that vote in court if the elected officials refuse to defend it. That means that if any elected official doesn't like the law the voters enact, then they can just ignore it and let it fall in court, effectively dictating their own will against the population. That's a VERY dangerous place for the citizens to live because it means they have no control over their government.

Doesn't it rather put it in the hands of the state Supreme Court (which seems like the proper place for it)? It doesn't create a dictatorship.

[Metsfanmax]

The Prop 8 ruling makes it illegal for voters of a state constitutional amendment to defend that vote in court if the elected officials refuse to defend it. That means that if any elected official doesn't like the law the voters enact, then they can just ignore it and let it fall in court, effectively dictating their own will against the population.

Wait so let me get this straight. If Edward Snowden thinks that something the government is doing is unconstitutional, he's allowed to violate federal law and completely compromise a huge government program to prove his point, but if the California AG thinks something the government is doing is unconstitutional, she has to continue to support it and defend it in court?

[Frigidus]

Well, we're still not quite out of the 18th century, but we're working on it.

[thegreekdog]

The Prop 8 ruling makes it illegal for voters of a state constitutional amendment to defend that vote in court if the elected officials refuse to defend it. That means that if any elected official doesn't like the law the voters enact, then they can just ignore it and let it fall in court, effectively dictating their own will against the population.

Wait so let me get this straight. If Edward Snowden thinks that something the government is doing is unconstitutional, he's allowed to violate federal law and completely compromise a huge government program to prove his point, but if the California AG thinks something the government is doing is unconstitutional, she has to continue to support it and defend it in court?

Welcome to Repocrat politics! Consistency be damned! Hypocrisy abounds!

[john9blue]

The Prop 8 ruling makes it illegal for voters of a state constitutional amendment to defend that vote in court if the elected officials refuse to defend it. That means that if any elected official doesn't like the law the voters enact, then they can just ignore it and let it fall in court, effectively dictating their own will against the population.

Wait so let me get this straight. If Edward Snowden thinks that something the government is doing is unconstitutional, he's allowed to violate federal law and completely compromise a huge government program to prove his point, but if the California AG thinks something the government is doing is unconstitutional, she has to continue to support it and defend it in court?

Welcome to Repocrat politics! Consistency be damned! Hypocrisy abounds!

you seem to like conflating what is "legal" and what is "right". i realize this is the basis of what you do, but it's wrong.

what snowden did was almost certainly illegal. that doesn't make it wrong.

it IS wrong, though, to let a small number of people dictate the law.

[Night Strike]

The Prop 8 ruling makes it illegal for voters of a state constitutional amendment to defend that vote in court if the elected officials refuse to defend it. That means that if any elected official doesn't like the law the voters enact, then they can just ignore it and let it fall in court, effectively dictating their own will against the population. That's a VERY dangerous place for the citizens to live because it means they have no control over their government.

Doesn't it rather put it in the hands of the state Supreme Court (which seems like the proper place for it)? It doesn't create a dictatorship.

Prop 8 was passed precisely because the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages could not be banned based on their state constitution. Prop 8 changed that constitution in order to nullify the state court ruling. At that point, opponents of Prop 8 filed suit in federal courts saying that the state constitution violated the federal constitution. After the supporters of Prop 8 lost in federal district court, they appealed to the Ninth Circuit court. The Ninth Circuit asked the state supreme court whether or not proponents of a ballot issue had standing to defend the law on appeal if the state government chose not to defend it. The state supreme court ruled that they did have standing, so the Ninth Circuit ruled on the merits of the case. The federal Supreme Court ruled that the question of standing was incorrect: that citizens do not have standing in federal courts to defend laws they voted to pass. THIS is where the problems of dictatorship comes in: if state officials don't want to defend a state law, the people of the state now have no way to do so.

IF this ruling actually stated that the federal courts should have never taken the case because it's a state constitutional question, then Prop 8 would be the settled law of the state (because the state courts can't overturn a passage within their state constitution). But that's not what the Supreme Court ruled; they expressly denied the determination of the state supreme court, they didn't say that it should have been decided in that court.

[Metsfanmax]

The Prop 8 ruling makes it illegal for voters of a state constitutional amendment to defend that vote in court if the elected officials refuse to defend it. That means that if any elected official doesn't like the law the voters enact, then they can just ignore it and let it fall in court, effectively dictating their own will against the population.

Wait so let me get this straight. If Edward Snowden thinks that something the government is doing is unconstitutional, he's allowed to violate federal law and completely compromise a huge government program to prove his point, but if the California AG thinks something the government is doing is unconstitutional, she has to continue to support it and defend it in court?

Welcome to Repocrat politics! Consistency be damned! Hypocrisy abounds!

you seem to like conflating what is "legal" and what is "right". i realize this is the basis of what you do, but it's wrong.

what snowden did was almost certainly illegal. that doesn't make it wrong.

it IS wrong, though, to let a small number of people dictate the law.

But that's exactly what Snowden did. One person decided he could unilaterally change government policy (by publicizing the NSA program, he removed much of the reason why it was effective to begin with).

[john9blue]

you seem to like conflating what is "legal" and what is "right". i realize this is the basis of what you do, but it's wrong.

what snowden did was almost certainly illegal. that doesn't make it wrong.

it IS wrong, though, to let a small number of people dictate the law.

But that's exactly what Snowden did. One person decided he could unilaterally change government policy (by publicizing the NSA program, he removed much of the reason why it was effective to begin with).

revealing information that causes a lot of people to change their opinions and possibly (unlikely) vote in people who hold different views on public policies which they may or may not implement

is not the same thing as directly causing a policy change.

[Woodruff]

The Prop 8 ruling makes it illegal for voters of a state constitutional amendment to defend that vote in court if the elected officials refuse to defend it. That means that if any elected official doesn't like the law the voters enact, then they can just ignore it and let it fall in court, effectively dictating their own will against the population.

Wait so let me get this straight. If Edward Snowden thinks that something the government is doing is unconstitutional, he's allowed to violate federal law and completely compromise a huge government program to prove his point, but if the California AG thinks something the government is doing is unconstitutional, she has to continue to support it and defend it in court?

Welcome to Repocrat politics! Consistency be damned! Hypocrisy abounds!

you seem to like conflating what is "legal" and what is "right". i realize this is the basis of what you do, but it's wrong.

what snowden did was almost certainly illegal. that doesn't make it wrong.

it IS wrong, though, to let a small number of people dictate the law.

Even when we elect them to do exactly that?

[Metsfanmax]

you seem to like conflating what is "legal" and what is "right". i realize this is the basis of what you do, but it's wrong.

what snowden did was almost certainly illegal. that doesn't make it wrong.

it IS wrong, though, to let a small number of people dictate the law.

But that's exactly what Snowden did. One person decided he could unilaterally change government policy (by publicizing the NSA program, he removed much of the reason why it was effective to begin with).

revealing information that causes a lot of people to change their opinions and possibly (unlikely) vote in people who hold different views on public policies which they may or may not implement

is not the same thing as directly causing a policy change.

As I said above, just by revealing the existence of the NSA program he basically nullified it. The whole point, the reason why it worked, was that it was secret. Just by publicizing it, he changed the policy. He had to have known that.

I could just as easily turn the argument around on you.

"Choosing not to defend a law, which is being brought to a legal challenge that may result in it being voted down

is not the same thing as directly causing a policy change"

Neither the California AG nor Edward Snowden could be described as being the ones who actually changed the law in this case. They just both did what they did knowing that they were the catalyst for someone else to change policy. There isn't a significant moral difference here, if we believe that it's right to do such a thing when you believe the law is unconstitutional.

[Nobunaga]

From Scalia's dissent:

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority's judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to "dis- parage," "injure," "degrade," "demean," and "humiliate" our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will "confine" the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

In the majority's telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one's political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today's Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.
But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today's decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.

..

[crispybits]

The Prop 8 ruling makes it illegal for voters of a state constitutional amendment to defend that vote in court if the elected officials refuse to defend it. That means that if any elected official doesn't like the law the voters enact, then they can just ignore it and let it fall in court, effectively dictating their own will against the population. That's a VERY dangerous place for the citizens to live because it means they have no control over their government.

Doesn't it rather put it in the hands of the state Supreme Court (which seems like the proper place for it)? It doesn't create a dictatorship.

Prop 8 was passed precisely because the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages could not be banned based on their state constitution. Prop 8 changed that constitution in order to nullify the state court ruling. At that point, opponents of Prop 8 filed suit in federal courts saying that the state constitution violated the federal constitution. After the supporters of Prop 8 lost in federal district court, they appealed to the Ninth Circuit court. The Ninth Circuit asked the state supreme court whether or not proponents of a ballot issue had standing to defend the law on appeal if the state government chose not to defend it. The state supreme court ruled that they did have standing, so the Ninth Circuit ruled on the merits of the case. The federal Supreme Court ruled that the question of standing was incorrect: that citizens do not have standing in federal courts to defend laws they voted to pass. THIS is where the problems of dictatorship comes in: if state officials don't want to defend a state law, the people of the state now have no way to do so.

IF this ruling actually stated that the federal courts should have never taken the case because it's a state constitutional question, then Prop 8 would be the settled law of the state (because the state courts can't overturn a passage within their state constitution). But that's not what the Supreme Court ruled; they expressly denied the determination of the state supreme court, they didn't say that it should have been decided in that court.

Forgive me for not being quite as versed in US law as some of you, but I have a question about the above.

The Prop 8 ruling seemed to me to state that unless someone has a personal greivance, that is that their life is materially affected by something, that they are forced to do or not to do something within their day to day lives by a particular law or they are having rights denied by said law or see unfair preferential rights given to others by said law, then they have no right to either challenge or defend that law in the supreme court (state or federal). In this case, the people who wished to defend Prop 8 in place of the state elected officials should have to show that in their day to day lives, the law is causing them either to do or not do something which causes them to be forced to act differently than they otherwise would or that rights are being granted to others that are not being granted to them or rights they believe they should have are being denied to them. Is that accurate or am I missing something?

If the above is accurate, what material effect or rights issue do the Prop 8 defenders claim from their day to day lives that would allow them to step in and defend that law in the court if their elected officials choose not to? How exactly does Prop 8 standing or falling change the day to day lives of those who wish to defend it in this way?

[thegreekdog]

The Prop 8 ruling makes it illegal for voters of a state constitutional amendment to defend that vote in court if the elected officials refuse to defend it. That means that if any elected official doesn't like the law the voters enact, then they can just ignore it and let it fall in court, effectively dictating their own will against the population.

Wait so let me get this straight. If Edward Snowden thinks that something the government is doing is unconstitutional, he's allowed to violate federal law and completely compromise a huge government program to prove his point, but if the California AG thinks something the government is doing is unconstitutional, she has to continue to support it and defend it in court?

Welcome to Repocrat politics! Consistency be damned! Hypocrisy abounds!

you seem to like conflating what is "legal" and what is "right". i realize this is the basis of what you do, but it's wrong.

what snowden did was almost certainly illegal. that doesn't make it wrong.

it IS wrong, though, to let a small number of people dictate the law.

While I agree in principle with your argument (especially the last sentence - I'm not a fan of tyranny of the minority), no one has yet been able to convince me that the "small number of people" and the law that they want affects me. I do not see any negative effect on my own marriage (or my religion) that gay marriage will have. Further, I never needed the government to "defend" my marriage.

In any event, your specific argument is incorrect as well. Snowden violated a law or laws, but he was being consistent with constitutional principles (a patriot if you will). He was rightfully concerned about the 5th amendment rights of U.S. citizens. The DOMA law is most certainly (in my unlearned opinion) unconstitutional. It does not provide equal protection and it violates federalism principles. All that assumes that you view the U.S. Constitution as being the preeminent law of the United States and that it is an unmalleable document.

[Night Strike]

The Prop 8 ruling makes it illegal for voters of a state constitutional amendment to defend that vote in court if the elected officials refuse to defend it. That means that if any elected official doesn't like the law the voters enact, then they can just ignore it and let it fall in court, effectively dictating their own will against the population. That's a VERY dangerous place for the citizens to live because it means they have no control over their government.

Doesn't it rather put it in the hands of the state Supreme Court (which seems like the proper place for it)? It doesn't create a dictatorship.

Prop 8 was passed precisely because the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriages could not be banned based on their state constitution. Prop 8 changed that constitution in order to nullify the state court ruling. At that point, opponents of Prop 8 filed suit in federal courts saying that the state constitution violated the federal constitution. After the supporters of Prop 8 lost in federal district court, they appealed to the Ninth Circuit court. The Ninth Circuit asked the state supreme court whether or not proponents of a ballot issue had standing to defend the law on appeal if the state government chose not to defend it. The state supreme court ruled that they did have standing, so the Ninth Circuit ruled on the merits of the case. The federal Supreme Court ruled that the question of standing was incorrect: that citizens do not have standing in federal courts to defend laws they voted to pass. THIS is where the problems of dictatorship comes in: if state officials don't want to defend a state law, the people of the state now have no way to do so.

IF this ruling actually stated that the federal courts should have never taken the case because it's a state constitutional question, then Prop 8 would be the settled law of the state (because the state courts can't overturn a passage within their state constitution). But that's not what the Supreme Court ruled; they expressly denied the determination of the state supreme court, they didn't say that it should have been decided in that court.

Forgive me for not being quite as versed in US law as some of you, but I have a question about the above.

The Prop 8 ruling seemed to me to state that unless someone has a personal greivance, that is that their life is materially affected by something, that they are forced to do or not to do something within their day to day lives by a particular law or they are having rights denied by said law or see unfair preferential rights given to others by said law, then they have no right to either challenge or defend that law in the supreme court (state or federal). In this case, the people who wished to defend Prop 8 in place of the state elected officials should have to show that in their day to day lives, the law is causing them either to do or not do something which causes them to be forced to act differently than they otherwise would or that rights are being granted to others that are not being granted to them or rights they believe they should have are being denied to them. Is that accurate or am I missing something?

If the above is accurate, what material effect or rights issue do the Prop 8 defenders claim from their day to day lives that would allow them to step in and defend that law in the court if their elected officials choose not to? How exactly does Prop 8 standing or falling change the day to day lives of those who wish to defend it in this way?

That's the exact problem with their non-ruling: if citizens vote to enact a law but the elected officials don't like the law, the Supreme Court has said no one has standing to defend the law, therefore the elected officials get to enact their personal viewpoints over the people who actually enacted the law.

[Night Strike]

The DOMA law is most certainly (in my unlearned opinion) unconstitutional. It does not provide equal protection and it violates federalism principles. All that assumes that you view the U.S. Constitution as being the preeminent law of the United States and that it is an unmalleable document.

What was unconstitutional? All it was doing was providing a federal definition to marriage, which is the exact same thing the 50 states can or have done. The feds define parameters for a myriad of policies, including every area of the tax code, yet their definitions aren't forced on them by the state. However, this ruling makes it illegal for the federal government to set up a definition that is different from any state definition. If a person supports this ruling, then they should also support ending the different treatment for ALL people between state and federal taxes. If you're in the top tax bracket in your state, then by this ruling you should be in the top bracket in federal taxes. If your state has no income tax at all, then you should not have to pay any federal income taxes because it's the states that are the sole determiner of definitions and the feds have no say in defining parameters.

[crispybits]

That's the exact problem with their non-ruling: if citizens vote to enact a law but the elected officials don't like the law, the Supreme Court has said no one has standing to defend the law, therefore the elected officials get to enact their personal viewpoints over the people who actually enacted the law.

The elctorate has the power to change the elected officials, in fact they could call for a recall election right now if they want to vote someone in who will defend their law. The process is different to the process they attemtped, but there is a way for the electorate to force a new election and elect someone who (should they win that election) defend the law to their satisfaction.

The principle of having to have a real, material interest in the law to be able to defend/challenge it in court seems valid to me, otherwise you could get all sorts of spurious/malicious suits brought both because of moral and commercial profiteering motives.

[Night Strike]

That's the exact problem with their non-ruling: if citizens vote to enact a law but the elected officials don't like the law, the Supreme Court has said no one has standing to defend the law, therefore the elected officials get to enact their personal viewpoints over the people who actually enacted the law.

The elctorate has the power to change the elected officials, in fact they could call for a recall election right now if they want to vote someone in who will defend their law. The process is different to the process they attemtped, but there is a way for the electorate to force a new election and elect someone who (should they win that election) defend the law to their satisfaction.

The principle of having to have a real, material interest in the law to be able to defend/challenge it in court seems valid to me, otherwise you could get all sorts of spurious/malicious suits brought both because of moral and commercial profiteering motives.

I agree that should be the case for originating those lawsuits. And I agree that if a law was enacted only by the elected government, then it should be only the members of the elected government who should be able to defend and appeal those laws. But when a law or state constitutional amendment is passed by the vote of the people, then those people should still have the ability to defend in court the law they voted for if the elected officials decide they don't like the law.

For an example that's much less politically charged, let's take a look at a different scenario. Let's say that after a vote of the people, a state constitutional amendment is enacted stating that all elected officials can be paid no more than the median wages of their state. An elected official challenges that in federal court and the feds decide the state constitutional amendment conflicts with some provision of federal law/constitution. The other elected officials who have standing to appeal that decision decide they don't like the law either, so they refuse to appeal the decision in order to raise their own wages. Should that be allowed? Or should the citizens who voted in that constitutional amendment have the ability to file an appeal in order to defend the law? According to this Supreme Court ruling, such an appeal would not be allowed.

[AndyDufresne]

Now many of our service men and women can apply for full benefits from the pentagon for their spouses. Which is nice.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

The DOMA law is most certainly (in my unlearned opinion) unconstitutional. It does not provide equal protection and it violates federalism principles. All that assumes that you view the U.S. Constitution as being the preeminent law of the United States and that it is an unmalleable document.

What was unconstitutional? All it was doing was providing a federal definition to marriage, which is the exact same thing the 50 states can or have done. The feds define parameters for a myriad of policies, including every area of the tax code, yet their definitions aren't forced on them by the state. However, this ruling makes it illegal for the federal government to set up a definition that is different from any state definition. If a person supports this ruling, then they should also support ending the different treatment for ALL people between state and federal taxes. If you're in the top tax bracket in your state, then by this ruling you should be in the top bracket in federal taxes. If your state has no income tax at all, then you should not have to pay any federal income taxes because it's the states that are the sole determiner of definitions and the feds have no say in defining parameters.

That's a very broad (and ultimately incorrect) interpretation of the equal protection clause. Tax brackets have already been ruled to be constitutional with respect to equal protection (for example). Further, your logic in comparing tax brackets to gay marriage is also flawed (and applying the same treatment to everyone) seems to contradict your ultimate point.

In sum, your post confuses me, although I've heard this argument from conservative commentators on occasion.

[Night Strike]

The DOMA law is most certainly (in my unlearned opinion) unconstitutional. It does not provide equal protection and it violates federalism principles. All that assumes that you view the U.S. Constitution as being the preeminent law of the United States and that it is an unmalleable document.

What was unconstitutional? All it was doing was providing a federal definition to marriage, which is the exact same thing the 50 states can or have done. The feds define parameters for a myriad of policies, including every area of the tax code, yet their definitions aren't forced on them by the state. However, this ruling makes it illegal for the federal government to set up a definition that is different from any state definition. If a person supports this ruling, then they should also support ending the different treatment for ALL people between state and federal taxes. If you're in the top tax bracket in your state, then by this ruling you should be in the top bracket in federal taxes. If your state has no income tax at all, then you should not have to pay any federal income taxes because it's the states that are the sole determiner of definitions and the feds have no say in defining parameters.

That's a very broad (and ultimately incorrect) interpretation of the equal protection clause. Tax brackets have already been ruled to be constitutional with respect to equal protection (for example). Further, your logic in comparing tax brackets to gay marriage is also flawed (and applying the same treatment to everyone) seems to contradict your ultimate point.

In sum, your post confuses me, although I've heard this argument from conservative commentators on occasion.

If my logic is flawed in comparing tax brackets to gay marriage, then so was the Supreme Court's logic in their DOMA ruling. Remember, the entire suit was brought because a woman was denied federal estate tax exemption when her spouse died. So the very basis of the suit was based on tax law. The suit was saying that since her state recognized her marriage for tax purposes, the federal government must as well.

[crispybits]

I'm quite willing to leave the gay marriage debate aside NS, I'm curious about the federal vs state thing. I have a provisional opinion which I've expressed already, but it's far from set in stone. I do have another question that I can't find the answer to on google due to the volume of stories about the most recent decision.

When the case was first brought by Perry against Schwarzenegger (State of California) did the state government defend the law at this point? Or have they refused to defend it since day 1?