US Appeals Court rules gay marriage bans in WI and IN unconstitutional.

[Fargo]

Have the courts never revisited an issue and ruled differently?

The appointed judge has ruled. Get over it and get on with your life.

Designer99's argument is that the 7th Circuit has ruled, so get over it. I am curious why he thinks he gets to ignore the ruling of a court of superior jurisdiction which has already ruled that the 7th Circuit, and indeed all federal courts, lack jurisdiction to even hear the matter.

The SCOTUS has not to date overruled its decision in Baker, all these lower court end-runs are just that and fly in the face both the rule of precedent and the rule of hierarchy.

They are hearing cases which the SCOTUS has held they have no jurisdiction over.

The SCOTUS could, and may, reverse itself. Until that happens, this is all a judicial farce.

It is no different than if SCOTUS found a right to gay marriage, and then the 7th circuit upheld a law against it a couple decades later when public opinion had shifted.

 

[jbombelli]

Designer99's argument is that the 7th Circuit has ruled, so get over it. I am curious why he thinks he gets to ignore the ruling of a court of superior jurisdiction which has already ruled that the 7th Circuit, and indeed all federal courts, lack jurisdiction to even hear the matter.

The SCOTUS has not to date overruled its decision in Baker, all these lower court end-runs are just that and fly in the face both the rule of precedent and the rule of hierarchy.

They are hearing cases which the SCOTUS has held they have no jurisdiction over.

The SCOTUS could, and may, reverse itself. Until that happens, this is all a judicial farce.

How is it a farce when it needs to be taken through the various levels to get to the Supreme Court? Or will SCOTUS just unilaterally take it upon itself to issue a ruling with no case in front of it?

 

[Fargo]

How is it a farce when it needs to be taken through the various levels to get to the Supreme Court? Or will SCOTUS just unilaterally take it upon itself to issue a ruling with no case in front of it?

No, the district court follows precedent and finds no jurisdiction, the plaintiff has an immediate appeal of right to the 7th Cir. The 7th Cir follows precedent and finds no jurisdiction, there is then a discretionary appeal for cert to the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS then decides if it wants to reverse itself. It is basically the same set of steps for any case to reach the SCOTUS.

However, that doesn't let lower court judge's get themselves in the news with grandiose proclamations about societal re-engineering based upon public opinion, so many of them have decided to ignore the current law on the matter based upon their guess that the Supreme's might reverse themselves.

Rule of law be damned.

Keep in mind that the Supreme Court already stayed the fourth circuit's ruling permitting gay marriage in Virginia. It is almost certain they will do the same thing to the seventh.

 

[Tombs]

This fight was over from the start, some just won't quit. "Gay marriage" bans have always been unconstitutional, it's just now becoming official. Legislating others lives based on your religious beliefs is not how this country works.

If conservatives continue to pitch fits about this, they will lose the confidence of the younger generations who have grown up around openly gay people without harm.

Amen!

I'm still baffled by how much people care about controlling 2 consenting adults just trying to get through life like anyone else. They don't have the guts to actually attempt to control them by their own hand so they must demand the state controls their lives for them.

Still disgusting how some people spit on the concept of civil rights, as if they are its master and they are righteous enough to decide who else is deserving of them.

And proposing that a BAN on gay marriage is wrong is NOT statist. Proposing that you need the state to put a ban on gay marriage, on the other hand, is extremely statist. It means you're incapable of holding your own views to yourself, and you need the power of the state to violently force everyone who disagrees with you into compliance. Yes, that's EXACTLY what you're doing when you support a ban on gay marriage.

 

[Fargo]

Amen!

I'm still baffled by how much people care about controlling 2 consenting adults just trying to get through life like anyone else. They don't have the guts to actually attempt to control them by their own hand so they must demand the state controls their lives for them.

Still disgusting how some people spit on the concept of civil rights, as if they are its master and they are righteous enough to decide who else is deserving of them.

And proposing that a BAN on gay marriage is wrong is NOT statist. Proposing that you need the state to put a ban on gay marriage, on the other hand, is extremely statist. It means you're incapable of holding your own views to yourself, and you need the power of the state to violently force everyone who disagrees with you into compliance.

Yes, yes we need the federal government to force everyone who disagrees with legalized gay marriage into compliance with it! That's not statist at all!

All those pesky voters in all those pesky states who passed all those pesky laws must be controlled!

 

[HeadlessRoland]

+1

l'll go further and submit the state should not be involved in marriage at all....not even the one between me and my wife.

Not 'further' as it's just a re-statement of my earlier statement, but I wholeheartedly concur.

Don't worry, though, Henry - at some point all these Statists will run out of breath trying to shout one another down on whose version of tyranny is more palatable and tastes less like dog vomit. Eventually. Not any time soon, mind you, because hey - who doesn't like being a total busybody and trying to coerce their neighbors to do stuff, right? - but eventually, at some point, these without-merit assertions will cease and they will then wind up like dogs on their haunches; finally tuckered out and worn down, having at long last realized that dog vomit never tastes good, no matter how much they might have thought their own flavor tasted otherwise. Let the dogs of Statism bark and bark and bark and tire themselves out - they're bound to do so eventually.

Right?

 

[Tombs]

Yes, yes we need the federal government to force everyone who disagrees with legalized gay marriage into compliance with it! That's not statist at all!

All those pesky voters in all those pesky states who passed all those pesky laws must be controlled!

It's about a ban on gay marriage, not about gay marriage its self.

What you're saying is akin to "if we don't ban guns, we must force everyone to own one!"

 

[Fargo]

It's about a ban on gay marriage, not about gay marriage its self.

What you're saying is akin to "if we don't ban guns, we must force everyone to own one!"

No, not at all. What I'm saying is that you are calling on unelected lawyers to overrule what the we the people have done. Specifically you are calling for the federal government to come in and take authority away from the state government. This is an expansion of federal government and expansion of the federal state.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in Baker that this is an issue properly decided by state government, not the federal judiciary.Why this is ignored I do not understand.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Why this is ignored I do not understand.

1. Because the concern over "federalism" and "liberty" is merely a stalking horse for an agenda.

2. Because if unelected lawyers do the heavy lifting I don't have to write my state rep or senator.

3. Because unelected lawyers want an awesome obit in the New York Times.

 

[Tombs]

No, not at all. What I'm saying is that you are calling on unelected lawyers to overrule what the we the people have done. Specifically you are calling for the federal government to come in and take authority away from the state government. This is an expansion of federal government and expansion of the federal state.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in Baker that this is an issue properly decided by state government, not the federal judiciary.Why this is ignored I do not understand.

I guess if that's your stance, a state should have the right to enact Sharia law, right?

I don't know about you but I take offense to the concept that a majority can take away the right to life, liberty, and happiness of any minority it wishes. This is why we don't live in a direct democracy, but a republic.

I would like to remind you that just because you're a majority now, doesn't mean you'll always be. So I would be very careful what you wish for.

 

[Fargo]

I guess if that's your stance, a state should have the right to enact Sharia law, right?

I don't know about you but I take offense to the concept that a majority can take away the right to life, liberty, and happiness of any minority it wishes. This is why we don't live in a direct democracy, but a republic.

Gay marriage has been illegal since the founding of this republic over 200 years ago and it hasn't exactly fallen. I don't know why you think that it needs to be reinvented, much less by unelected judges against the will of the people.

Its been about 150 years since the 14th amendment was ratified, I'm curious how we are just discovering this now.

 

[mrjarrell]

So, you're against the recent court cases that ruled in favour of gun Rights? Illinois people spoke and banned the carry of firearms, through their legislators. Just as the legislators in Indiana spoke for you, (not for me, though or gay Hoosiers). After all those unelected lawyers meddled in the affairs of the state where it was the will of the people.

 

[Fargo]

So, you're against the recent court cases that ruled in favour of gun Rights? Illinois people spoke and banned the carry of firearms, through their legislators. Just as the legislators in Indiana spoke for you, (not for me, though or gay Hoosiers). After all those unelected lawyers meddled in the affairs of the state where it was the will of the people.

If you are talking about McDonald, I do have to question exactly how the second amendment applies to a state government supposedly through the 14th.

That said, if it does apply how are these circumstances analogous? Where in the Constitution is the phrase "the right of the people to wed members of the same-sex shall not be infringed"?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You will not find a single word in the Congressional Records uttered by the Framers of the 14th Amendment as to gay marriage. You will find plenty about the RKBA by the Framers.

Gay marriage is nothing more than wants becoming needs becoming rights. To call it a right is a blow to rights.

 

[jamil]

You will not find a single word in the Congressional Records uttered by the Framers of the 14th Amendment as to gay marriage. You will find plenty about the RKBA by the Framers.

Gay marriage is nothing more than wants becoming needs becoming rights. To call it a right is a blow to rights.

Wait, but don't we all have a right to be recognized? Don't we all have a right to pay in the NFL?

 

[Tombs]

Gay marriage has been illegal since the founding of this republic over 200 years ago and it hasn't exactly fallen. I don't know why you think that it needs to be reinvented, much less by unelected judges against the will of the people.

Its been about 150 years since the 14th amendment was ratified, I'm curious how we are just discovering this now.

And slavery was legal at the founding of this republic as well, so were hard drugs, so was sex with animals.

What exactly are you getting at? Wait, you didn't know civil rights evolve as humans gain the ability to reason with facts and evidence instead of superstition?

 

[mrjarrell]

McDonald or any of the plethora of other state imposed restrictions on the Rights of gun owners. States Rights uber alles, right? The courts have rules them to be a violation of the Rights of a minority (gunowners) and we're all good with that, but when those self same courts rule on the mistreatment of another minority it's all OMG! WTF!

The courts are ruling (and perhaps, in Indiana's case, revisiting) the Constitutionality of a law that is violating the Rights of a minority. I don't really have an issue with that.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I am certain in the Rights Making Industry of the Left all the Bill of Rights will be replaced with such nonsense.

 

[Fargo]

McDonald or any of the plethora of other state imposed restrictions on the Rights of gun owners. States Rights uber alles, right? The courts have rules them to be a violation of the Rights of a minority (gunowners) and we're all good with that, but when those self same courts rule on the mistreatment of another minority it's all OMG! WTF!

The courts are ruling (and perhaps, in Indiana's case, revisiting) the Constitutionality of a law that is violating the Rights of a minority. I don't really have an issue with that.

I think you grossly misunderstand all of the court opinions you are referring to. The Supreme Court has already ruled this is not a federal constitutional issue, it is an issue left to the people of the state. The ability to govern oneself also implies the ability to govern oneself poorly.

I am amazed at how many so-called libertarians on here really are in love with oligarchy when it suits their ends.

 

[Tombs]

I think you grossly misunderstand all of the court opinions you are referring to. The Supreme Court has already ruled this is not a federal constitutional issue, it is an issue left to the people of the state. The ability to govern oneself also implies the ability to govern oneself poorly.

I am amazed at how many so-called libertarians on here really are in love with oligarchy.

Libertarian's stance is not one of banning things.

Especially not in respect to dark age superstitions.