Supreme Court delays action on gay marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2015 2:05 AM GMT
    Hmmm, interesting strategy, delay to next week icon_confused.gif

    I know, #13

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/01/09/supreme-court-gay-marriage/21454467/

    The Supreme Court delayed action Friday on its most closely watched deliberation -- whether to rule this year on states' remaining bans against same-sex marriage.

    After considering petitions filed by gay and lesbian couples in five states that still prohibit gay and lesbian nuptials, the justices did not agree to hear any of them. Their decision could come next week.

    If the issue is to be resolved during the court term ending in June, the justices must choose to hear one or more cases before the end of the month. That would allow time for briefs to be filed, oral arguments heard and a ruling rendered by late June.

    No word today from U.S. Supreme Court on same-sex marriage
    http://www.dispatch.com/content/blogs/the-daily-briefing/2015/01/01.09.2015-nothing-from-supremes.html

    The court could announce a decision Monday at 9:30 a.m., or take another look at the case in a private review session on Jan. 16.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2015 4:31 PM GMT
    SCOTUS does this on occasion, but not often. They did the same thing when I petitioned for certiorari to hear an adverse ruling in a case I filed on behalf of two gay GOPers who were tossed from their GOP country committee (cc) after being repeatedly reelected to it. We sued the GOP cc, but the courts found that cc's are not state actors, so no federal civil rights claim existed. However, the 9th Circuit issued a sua sponte order for briefs on rehearing after initially affirming the trial court's dismissal, so we took some comfort in that, as well as in SCOTUS' twice delaying resolution of my cert petition while they grappled with the issues.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2015 4:37 PM GMT
    i just hope it totally gets resolved before the big prez election.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 10, 2015 6:22 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidSCOTUS does this on occasion, but not often. They did the same thing when I petitioned for certiorari to hear an adverse ruling in a case I filed on behalf of two gay GOPers who were tossed from their GOP country committee (cc) after being repeatedly reelected to it. We sued the GOP cc, but the courts found that cc's are not state actors, so no federal civil rights claim existed. However, the 9th Circuit issued a sua sponte order for briefs on rehearing after initially affirming the trial court's dismissal, so we took some comfort in that, as well as in SCOTUS' twice delaying resolution of my cert petition while they grappled with the issues.


    ^^^^ Look at me! Hey, everybody, look at me! ^^^^
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14305

    Jan 10, 2015 6:27 PM GMT
    Koastal said
    MGINSD saidSCOTUS does this on occasion, but not often. They did the same thing when I petitioned for certiorari to hear an adverse ruling in a case I filed on behalf of two gay GOPers who were tossed from their GOP country committee (cc) after being repeatedly reelected to it. We sued the GOP cc, but the courts found that cc's are not state actors, so no federal civil rights claim existed. However, the 9th Circuit issued a sua sponte order for briefs on rehearing after initially affirming the trial court's dismissal, so we took some comfort in that, as well as in SCOTUS' twice delaying resolution of my cert petition while they grappled with the issues.


    ^^^^ Look at me! Hey, everybody, look at me! ^^^^
    We're looking at you koastal. I will say you look mighty fine in that green speedo in one of your photosicon_biggrin.gificon_lol.gif Now if only we could get you to move out of the giant favela known as Texas or more accurately TexASSicon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2015 1:49 AM GMT
    Unexpectedly interesting. The audio of TX's oral arguments before the 5th circuit on Fri trying to justify the ban on marriage equality because "homosexual marriage does not result in procreation" and therefore the state has no incentive to promote it.

    http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/14/14-50196_1-9-2015.mp3

    I love the part where he uses the analogy of school lunch programs for some kids but not for others based on income and how that's similar to allowing some 'type' of couples to marry but not others. Talk about grasping at straws here. Sounds like the judges were less than impressed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2015 4:34 AM GMT
    Koastal said
    MGINSD saidSCOTUS does this on occasion, but not often. They did the same thing when I petitioned for certiorari to hear an adverse ruling in a case I filed on behalf of two gay GOPers who were tossed from their GOP country committee (cc) after being repeatedly reelected to it. We sued the GOP cc, but the courts found that cc's are not state actors, so no federal civil rights claim existed. However, the 9th Circuit issued a sua sponte order for briefs on rehearing after initially affirming the trial court's dismissal, so we took some comfort in that, as well as in SCOTUS' twice delaying resolution of my cert petition while they grappled with the issues.


    ^^^^ Look at me! Hey, everybody, look at me! ^^^^


    And just what have you done to advance gay rights? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2015 5:43 AM GMT
    MGINSD said a case I filed on behalf of two gay GOPers who were tossed from their GOP country committee (cc) after being repeatedly reelected to it.

    Seems like a long shot to begin with. Courts have held repeatedly (as I'm sure you know) that political parties are for these purposes more like private associations than public entities. But good for you making the attempt anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2015 4:36 PM GMT
    Sharkspeare said
    MGINSD said a case I filed on behalf of two gay GOPers who were tossed from their GOP country committee (cc) after being repeatedly reelected to it.

    Seems like a long shot to begin with. Courts have held repeatedly (as I'm sure you know) that political parties are for these purposes more like private associations than public entities. But good for you making the attempt anyway.


    Thanks, Shakes. Actually, an OH district court had so held, but that opinion wasn't binding. As I mentioned, the 9th Cir.'s seeking rehearing briefs gave us all a big boost, and it WAS a fun case from the get-go. Maybe next time!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2015 11:38 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    Koastal said
    MGINSD saidSCOTUS does this on occasion, but not often. They did the same thing when I petitioned for certiorari to hear an adverse ruling in a case I filed on behalf of two gay GOPers who were tossed from their GOP country committee (cc) after being repeatedly reelected to it. We sued the GOP cc, but the courts found that cc's are not state actors, so no federal civil rights claim existed. However, the 9th Circuit issued a sua sponte order for briefs on rehearing after initially affirming the trial court's dismissal, so we took some comfort in that, as well as in SCOTUS' twice delaying resolution of my cert petition while they grappled with the issues.


    ^^^^ Look at me! Hey, everybody, look at me! ^^^^


    And just what have you done to advance gay rights? icon_rolleyes.gif


    I have been a Federal Club member of the HRC for the last 11 years as well as a strong financial supporter of Lambda legal. Only because of the dramatic advances pushed forward over the last 6 years, (and which party can we thank for that) have I recently cancelled my membership. I will continue to make nominal annual donations.

    I certainly think that anything positive you purport have done in a legal capacity is FAR outweighed by your unabashed support of the republican party, which none would argue has done more to retard the advancement of legal and protected equality in this country than any credible group.

    I also don't feel the need to toot my own horn be it in legal latin or any other language. This is merely a reply to your question. I personally doubt much of what you say, especially the bs about all the 'close friends you had that died of HIV related causes.' Really? I'll bet Reagan still gives you wood.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 3:01 AM GMT
    Koastal said
    MGINSD said
    Koastal said
    MGINSD saidSCOTUS does this on occasion, but not often. They did the same thing when I petitioned for certiorari to hear an adverse ruling in a case I filed on behalf of two gay GOPers who were tossed from their GOP country committee (cc) after being repeatedly reelected to it. We sued the GOP cc, but the courts found that cc's are not state actors, so no federal civil rights claim existed. However, the 9th Circuit issued a sua sponte order for briefs on rehearing after initially affirming the trial court's dismissal, so we took some comfort in that, as well as in SCOTUS' twice delaying resolution of my cert petition while they grappled with the issues.


    ^^^^ Look at me! Hey, everybody, look at me! ^^^^


    And just what have you done to advance gay rights? icon_rolleyes.gif


    I have been a Federal Club member of the HRC for the last 11 years as well as a strong financial supporter of Lambda legal. Only because of the dramatic advances pushed forward over the last 6 years, (and which party can we thank for that) have I recently cancelled my membership. I will continue to make nominal annual donations.

    I certainly think that anything positive you purport have done in a legal capacity is FAR outweighed by your unabashed support of the republican party, which none would argue has done more to retard the advancement of legal and protected equality in this country than any credible group.

    I also don't feel the need to toot my own horn be it in legal latin or any other language. This is merely a reply to your question. I personally doubt much of what you say, especially the bs about all the 'close friends you had that died of HIV related causes.' Really? I'll bet Reagan still gives you wood.


    As Tony Blair told his staff in The Queen, "Boy, when you get it wrong, you get it really wrong." I won't address your parading your HRC/FC (read, Democratic special interest PAC) membership, but I will note that I've given at least equal amounts of cash, and much more in terms of time and pro bono - pardon my "legal latin" - work to Log Cabin Republicans and the SF GLBTQ Bar organization BALIF over the past three decades; age does have its privileges. You're free to judge what I've done for our causes as you will, just as I'm free to reject that judgment, as I do because you really have no idea of who I am or what you're talking about, given your own lack of any knowledge, personal or otherwise, of what I've done over the years, or those I was close to who've died of AIDS. (Again, my age alone, if not my living in SF until 2003, would clue any reasoning mind that it's more likely than not I knew many AIDS victims.) But yes, I still do consider Ronald Reagan as the greatest president of my lifetime - he did win the Cold War after all - though the only wood he ever gave me was a heart of oak to stand up even more firmly for my beliefs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 4:46 AM GMT
    Heart of oak? Give it a rest counselor.
    Ronnie had about as much of a heart as DICK cheney.
    Ask some of your beloved "friends'" survivors how they feel about his response to the pandemic. And I know that those who suffer from
    reagan delusion syndrome love to think he "won" the cold war, but happening to be leader of the free world at the same time that the inevitable collapse of communism happened doesn't really merit him the credit. I think history is likely to give much more credit to Walesa, the Pope and even Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost policies than anything ronnie or his astrologers did.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 6:30 AM GMT
    Koastal saidHeart of oak? Give it a rest counselor.
    Ronnie had about as much of a heart as DICK cheney.
    Ask some of your beloved "friends'" survivors how they feel about his response to the pandemic. And I know that those who suffer from
    reagan delusion syndrome love to think he "won" the cold war, but happening to be leader of the free world at the same time that the inevitable collapse of communism happened doesn't really merit him the credit. I think history is likely to give much more credit to Walesa, the Pope and even Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost policies than anything ronnie or his astrologers did.


    Sounds to me like your stethoscope has rested a bit too long, Doc. The "heart" in question was mine, not President Reagan's, Dick Cheney's or any of your other bugbears' who earned the lasting enmity of the left by winning the Cold War. Your study of history could use some auscultation, too; so now you fall back on the "inevitable collapse of communism" defense after - if not still - praising it, under whatever name it travels,* as the shape of the future. As for my friends' survivors, as well as some of my dead friends themselves, we had those discussions (and I believe I'd earlier posted on them), while the the latter were still alive. Because they were my friends, or conversely, they accepted their own responsibility for what happened to them, and didn't whine, whimper, or shift blame or guilt onto others. One, a tremendously talented concert pianist, and one of the most intelligently humorous people I've ever known, used to tell me often about his grappling with going to the baths weekly while realizing how dangerous it was. Another, a social worker, was taken unawares but accepted his fate as the result of his own faithlessness to his partner, who was himself equally faithless. Not pretty, and even less pretty to those who cling to the "Angels in America" or "Longtime Companion" versions of the epidemic, instead of what in all its brutal reality actually occurred to real people.
    _____
    *The nom de jour is "economic justice," though most thinking people recognize it as just another euphemism, pace Deco, for socialism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 12, 2015 6:34 PM GMT
    Did you by chance take some sort of elective in Turd Polishing while in law school? Because although it looks pretty, it still smells like shit. Trust me, we gynecologists are quite familiar with the odor. Incidentally, we use dopplers in lieu of stethoscopes. But you go ahead and have the last word...I'm sure you have the time.