SCOTUS: DOMA ruled unconstitutional

[CathyInBlue]

The DOMA ruling is easy to understand. Prop 8 ruling, not so much.

Federal law cannot set aside special rights and privileges for heterosexual couples in marriage versus same-sex couples in marriage. Okay. Gotcha.

Someone didn't have standing to do something and a bunch of stuff got vacated. Okay. ?????

Who didn't have what standing when and to do what? How much is vacated? To what point? What's left? How does Prop 8 stand now?

Oh, and IBLT.

 

[jbombelli]

Good.

While today was a good day for freedom in America, it's not been such a good day for the Democrats, who brought us DOMA in the first place.

 

[miguel]

So -- and help me out, lawyers -- the Fed can't restrict homo marriage, that is up to states. But Cali's Prop 8, which was a state ballot initiative (that passed, if I understand correctly) can't stand because whoever sued didn't have standing?

Can someone clarify that? It seems contradictory, but I am not an legal beagle.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Good.

While today was a good day for freedom in America, it's not been such a good day for the Democrats, who brought us DOMA in the first place.

Huh?

Senate:
Yays: (D)-32 (R)-53
Nays: (D)-14 (R)-0
Not voting: (D)-1

Just because the Democrat's Democrat, Billy Boy Clinton ratified it into law, it's wholly disingenuous to blame the Democrats for DOMA.

If anything, it was the Democrats who were vindicated by today's SCOTUS decision: Committee Reports - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - House Report 104-664

CONCLUSION
The `Defense of Marriage Act' is insupportable. It is legally unnecessary and as a policy matter unwise. The effect of the legislation will be not to protect heterosexual marriage, an institution we strongly support, but rather to divide people needlessly and to diminish the power of states to determine their own laws with respect to marriage. For these reasons, we oppose the measure.
John Conyers, Jr.
Barney Frank.
Howard L. Berman.
Jerrold Nadler.
Melvin L. Watt.
Zoe Lofgren.
Maxine Waters.
Patricia Schroeder.
Xavier Becerra.

 

[CathyInBlue]

So -- and help me out, lawyers -- the Fed can't restrict homo marriage, that is up to states. But Cali's Prop 8, which was a state ballot initiative (that passed, if I understand correctly) can't stand because whoever sued didn't have standing?

Can someone clarify that? It seems contradictory, but I am not an legal beagle.

I think the Supremes rolled back all federal court actions on Prop 8 back to the last known state court action, which was to declare Prop 8 unconstitutional. Not entirely sure of that assessment, however.

Edit: I'm also not entirely sure who it is that they claim did not have standing. I think they may have been claiming the Prop 8 proponents had no standing to defend Prop 8 in federal courts, not that the plaintiffs were the ones with no standing to challenge Prop 8.

 

[jbombelli]

Huh?

Senate:
Yays: (D)-32 (R)-53
Nays: (D)-14 (R)-0
Not voting: (D)-1

Just because the Democrat's Democrat, Billy Boy Clinton ratified it into law, it's wholly disingenuous to blame the Democrats for DOMA.

If anything, it was the Democrats who were vindicated by today's SCOTUS decision: Committee Reports - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - House Report 104-664

In truth it was a completely bipartisan act, signed by a Democrat.

But why is it disingenuous? People blame Republicans around here for the '86 machine gun ban because Reagan signed it. And the steps involved in getting THAT to his desk were a lot more shady on the part of the Democrats, but Reagan gets the blame. So why can't we blame the Democrats and Bill Clinton for DOMA? Is turnabout not fair play?

 

[Degtyaryov]

Glad to see they did the right thing, both with this and prop 8. DOMA was absurdly unconstitutional, it was a law basically saying that states could ignore the full faith and credit clause. You just can't do that.

 

[CarmelHP]

Glad to see they did the right thing, both with this and prop 8. DOMA was absurdly unconstitutional, it was a law basically saying that states could ignore the full faith and credit clause. You just can't do that.

Nothing to do with "full faith and credit." Other states can keep ignoring the homosexual marriages of other states, just that the federal government can not ignore state marriage enactments when applying federal laws as it is a realm of law wholly reserved to the states.

 

[MisterChester]

To be fair the PATRIOT act was a bipartisan bill too.

 

[CarmelHP]

I think the Supremes rolled back all federal court actions on Prop 8 back to the last known state court action, which was to declare Prop 8 unconstitutional. Not entirely sure of that assessment, however.

Edit: I'm also not entirely sure who it is that they claim did not have standing. I think they may have been claiming the Prop 8 proponents had no standing to defend Prop 8 in federal courts, not that the plaintiffs were the ones with no standing to challenge Prop 8.

Essentially correct. The state courts had decided. California declined to appeal. Proponents of the law, who are not actual parties to the litigation, and with no cognizable standing, sought the appeal. Simple jurisdictional issue.

 

[jbombelli]

To be fair the PATRIOT act was a bipartisan bill too.

And everyone blames Bush and the Republicans for it. NDAA was a bipartisan bill, and everyone blames Obama and the Democrats for it.

It's amazing how many bipartisan bills get blamed on either one party or the other, and how often they were "... for it before they were against it ..."

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I'm old enough to remember when Obama was against SSM.

 

[Tnichols00]

Not unexpected, marriage was left as a matter of state law enactment, where it should be.

Exactly! Give the power back to the states!! Props to the Supreme Court on this one.

 

[cobber]

I have always supported equal rights for all people.

As long as they're not "foreigners" wishing to exercise their Creator-given (or inalienable) right to self defense...

I don't agree with foreigners being in our country. But yes they should have the rights to defend themselves with guns in their own countries.

 

[miguel]

Essentially correct. The state courts had decided. California declined to appeal. Proponents of the law, who are not actual parties to the litigation, and with no cognizable standing, sought the appeal. Simple jurisdictional issue.

So, roughly speaking:

1. Cali passes Prop 8

2. Lower court says, "Cali, you can't do that!"

3. Cali pols happily says, "OK, we surrender!"

4. Racist, bigoted mother ****ers living in Cali say, "OK, we will challenge it!"

5. Case eventually makes it to SCOTUS

6. SCOTUS says, "State of Cali dropped suit, you Racist, bigoted mother ****ers living in Cali can't challenge it, only Cali pols can"

That about right?

 

[CarmelHP]

So, roughly speaking:

1. Cali passes Prop 8

2. Lower court says, "Cali, you can't do that!"

3. Cali pols happily says, "OK, we surrender!"

4. Racist, bigoted mother ****ers living in Cali say, "OK, we will challenge it!"

5. Case eventually makes it to SCOTUS

6. SCOTUS says, "State of Cali dropped suit, you Racist, bigoted mother ****ers living in Cali can't challenge it, only Cali pols can"

That about right?

Pretty much.

 

[mrjarrell]

Reason takes look at why DOMA was overturned. This is a good look at it.

Here

 

[rambone]

Why did 4 liberals get this one right, and 4 conservatives get it wrong?

I was brought up to believe only one side ever made good decisions.

 

[Stickfight]

I wouldn't really count Thomas' dissent on Prop 8 as getting it wrong. As usual, he got it righter than the others.

 

[CarmelHP]

Why did 4 liberals get this one right, and 4 conservatives get it wrong?

I was brought up to believe only one side ever made good decisions.

The dissents were well reasoned. Each dissent said that this case had been resolved by lower courts and the executive refused to appeal, therefore it is just judicial grandstanding, according to Scalia, to have the case before SCOTUS. Alito and Thomas went further to criticize the hindering Congress' power to apply their own laws in an area in which no clearly established right is threatened. I can't fault the dissents.