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

[Metsfanmax]

The Soviets, and every other government in the history of humanity.

That's not true, but keep telling yourself that and you'll always get the government you deserve.

Counterexample, please?

[Woodruff]

I find it interesting that you haven't pointed out where the Constitution needs to be overhauled and updated for today's age.

Most likely, the only thing he'd actually strike from the Constitution is the 2nd amendment.

I could probably be convinced to do away with the Third Amendment. Certainly it would be my first choice amongst the Bill of Rights, if one had to go.

[AndyDufresne]

Supreme Court Rules Human Genes May Not Be Patented

NY Times reporting:

show

SCOTUS Blog reporting:

show

Full (.pdf) Supreme Court Opinion

Usual suspects, please line up and tell us what it means: TGD, Metsfanmax, BBS, Haggis, Woodruff, PS, Lootifer, NS, et al.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Makes legal sense to me. Makes sense to me outside of the legal room too.

[Woodruff]

Supreme Court Rules Human Genes May Not Be Patented

Well...I really don't know much about this issue at all. However, from what I've seen on it, it seems pretty obvious to me that this would be the case.

[warmonger1981]

I heard it only applies to human genes not animal.

[/]

It's about time. This has been going on for decades, I had heard last that around 20% of the genome had already been patented.

When this is done, the patent holder can prevent other people from even looking at the patented section of genes, something that may be essential in order to conduct proper medical and scientific research. I think that in the long run even the medical corporations who owned the patents will benefit; as less restrictions on scientific research will make way for bigger and better breakthroughs.

[ooge]

I am going to spit ball this one,which is to say I am going of off my memory,So expect some errors.Before the 1980's if you worked for a government funded research lab you could not own your discovery's.The Reagan administration changed the law so they could own the discovery's, patent it and sell it to the highest bidder.This eventually resulted in all new discovery's being patented and somehow this included the human genome.Dr. salk(I think) upon creating the polio vaccine was asked if he was going to patent it,his response"you can not patent the sun" My belief with all these patents leads to less discovery's not more.Say there is a promising new technique that may lead to the cure of cancer but one company owns what this technique is based on.Other company's will not do research in that technique because they will never be able to benefit from it financially.....have a nice day! edit. as far as the ruling I am surprised they manage to even get Clarence Thomas to vote for this,he rarely likes to be in agreement with logical rulings or constitutional ones either for that matter.

[thegreekdog]

I am surprised they manage to even get Clarence Thomas to vote for this,he rarely likes to be in agreement with logical rulings or constitutional ones either for that matter.

Apparently you don't read US Supreme Court decisions or know anything at all about Clarence Thomas. Or you could be a partisan shill. I think all of the above. Or I suppose you could be a racist.

[AndyDufresne]

Justices Block Law Requiring Voters to Prove Citizenship

NY Times Reporting:

show

SCOTUS Blog reporting:

show

Full (.pdf) Supreme Court Decision

Usual suspects, please line up and tell us what it means: TGD, Metsfanmax, BBS, Haggis, Woodruff, PS, Lootifer, NS, et al.


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

I concur with the SCOTUS blog comment that the appropriate way to get a federal law to be changed is to ask the federal government to change it, and not to pass a blatantly invalid law to force an expensive legal battle that ends up doing nothing but creating further partisan divide.

[Woodruff]

Justices Block Law Requiring Voters to Prove Citizenship

NY Times Reporting:

show

SCOTUS Blog reporting:

show

Full (.pdf) Supreme Court Decision

Usual suspects, please line up and tell us what it means: TGD, Metsfanmax, BBS, Haggis, Woodruff, PS, Lootifer, NS, et al.
--Andy

We kinda beat this one to death in the run-up to the eleciton, didn't we?

[AndyDufresne]

You can now give your final summation.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

I concur with the SCOTUS blog comment that the appropriate way to get a federal law to be changed is to ask the federal government to change it, and not to pass a blatantly invalid law to force an expensive legal battle that ends up doing nothing but creating further partisan divide.

And had Arizona not thrown a hissy-fit, I do not think the following would have been mentioned:

Finally, the Court held that in the future, Arizona can ask the federal Election Assistance Commission, which creates the federal form, to include a requirement of additional proof of citizenship in the form, and to bring different legal challenges if the EAC refuses to do so.

Have they acquiesced because of that AZ law?

[ooge]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

[Night Strike]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

Actually, DOMA IS a states' rights law. It allows for each state to decide how to define marriage while protecting the rights of other states to decide differently. It also sets forth the federal definition of marriage.

[Woodruff]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

Actually, DOMA IS a states' rights law. It allows for each state to decide how to define marriage while protecting the rights of other states to decide differently. It also sets forth the federal definition of marriage.

How can it be a states' rights law if it also sets out the definition Federally? It seems to me that for this to be completely a states' rights issue, the Federal government should have no hand in it at all.

[Night Strike]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

Actually, DOMA IS a states' rights law. It allows for each state to decide how to define marriage while protecting the rights of other states to decide differently. It also sets forth the federal definition of marriage.

How can it be a states' rights law if it also sets out the definition Federally? It seems to me that for this to be completely a states' rights issue, the Federal government should have no hand in it at all.

Because the federal government has its own tax system, which means it has to have its own definitions to define who qualifies under what provision. There can't be a piecemeal approach to who is defined as what based on where you live under federal law because that would be a violation of the 14th amendment. Under DOMA, the federal government has its definitions and then allows states to set their own definitions for policies only within that state.

And that's fine if we're going to get the federal government out of all marriage definitions.....however that's going to require a much simpler tax code, otherwise there will be violations of the 14th amendment.

[ooge]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

Actually, DOMA IS a states' rights law. It allows for each state to decide how to define marriage while protecting the rights of other states to decide differently. It also sets forth the federal definition of marriage.

how is the voting ruling different from states rights? I guess what I am trying to do is set up Clarence Thomas to give a partisan ruling on DOMA. if he is consistent he should vote against DOMA. I think.

[Night Strike]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

Actually, DOMA IS a states' rights law. It allows for each state to decide how to define marriage while protecting the rights of other states to decide differently. It also sets forth the federal definition of marriage.

how is the voting ruling different from states rights? I guess what I am trying to do is set up Clarence Thomas to give a partisan ruling on DOMA. if he is consistent he should vote against DOMA. I think.

And I'm saying that it would still be consistent to vote to keep DOMA for the reasons I've mentioned.

[ooge]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

Actually, DOMA IS a states' rights law. It allows for each state to decide how to define marriage while protecting the rights of other states to decide differently. It also sets forth the federal definition of marriage.

How can it be a states' rights law if it also sets out the definition Federally? It seems to me that for this to be completely a states' rights issue, the Federal government should have no hand in it at all.

Because the federal government has its own tax system, which means it has to have its own definitions to define who qualifies under what provision. There can't be a piecemeal approach to who is defined as what based on where you live under federal law because that would be a violation of the 14th amendment. Under DOMA, the federal government has its definitions and then allows states to set their own definitions for policies only within that state.

And that's fine if we're going to get the federal government out of all marriage definitions.....however that's going to require a much simpler tax code, otherwise there will be violations of the 14th amendment.

I am confused,the 14 amendment is what will be cited as the reason for DOMA being unconstitutional and you seem to be saying the opposite. Oh well we will see how it turns out,my guess is bye bye DOMA with the usual suspects dissenting.

[AndyDufresne]

Key Part of Voting Rights Act Invalidated

NY Times Reporting:

show

SCOTUS Blog is doing live blogging, so not much to link to or include here, but you can check out things at: http://www.scotusblog.com/

Usual suspects, please line up and tell us what it means: TGD, Metsfanmax, BBS, Haggis, Woodruff, PS, Lootifer, NS, et al.


--Andy

[Night Strike]

The idea that states must get permission from the feds to carry out their Constitutional duty of ensuring proportional representation and putting in place election laws and procedures is absurd. At least they overturned the unequal treatment of the states.

[thegreekdog]

I skimmed Roberts' opinion in this one. It seems grounded in both jurisprudence (e.g. state sovereignty and federalism) and common sense. Frankly, my experience with gerrymandering makes me distrust any Congressional oversight with respect to issues like this. I'm honestly surprised by the dissents. I look with fondness on the pre-politicizing days of the Supreme Courth (i.e. pre-Bork).

[AndyDufresne]

Supreme Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act

‘DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages.’ — JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY

NY Times Reporting:

show: DOMA

Supreme Court Opinion


Justices Hold That California Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Do Not Have Standing to Sue

SCOTUS Blog Reporting:

show: Prop 8

Supreme Court Opinion

Usual suspects, please line up and tell us what it means: TGD, Metsfanmax, BBS, Haggis, Woodruff, PS, Lootifer, NS, et al.


--Andy