The Peoples Brief - Please sign the brief that will go to the SCOTUS for Marriage Equality

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Feb 10, 2015 6:12 PM GMT
    Read the full text of The People's Brief, a joint effort by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, and Roberta Kaplan, the acclaimed civil rights attorney who famously advocated on behalf of marriage equality in U.S. v. Windsor in 2013*.



    You can sign the brief here:

    (Must be a US citizen, over 18 year old)

    http://www.thepeoplesbrief.com/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2015 8:13 PM GMT
    Thank you for stepping up on behalf of millions of loving same-sex couples across the United States who have been denied the right to marry for far too long. Because of your support, we can fully illustrate how many Americans are seeking full nationwide marriage equality to the nation’s highest court.


    Signed and link emailed vigorously.

    (within moments I've already received first email back announcing another signature.)
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2942

    Feb 10, 2015 11:47 PM GMT
    Signed it, and passed it on to 20-30 friends.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2015 4:34 PM GMT
    VERY well written brief. How many of you know that Prof. Dale Carpenter of the UofMN Law School, is a former President of Lag Cabin Republicans' Houston chapter? Out of respect for his and the other authors' work product, I would not presume to "sign" the brief, HRC's urgings (read, thinly disguised Democratic fundraising) notwithstanding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2015 4:55 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidVERY well written brief. How many of you know that Prof. Dale Carpenter of the UofMN Law School, is a former President of Lag Cabin Republicans' Houston chapter? Out of respect for his and the other authors' work product, I would not presume to "sign" the brief, HRC's urgings (read, thinly disguised Democratic fundraising) notwithstanding.


    Did you just say--and attempt discouraging others from signing--that you, a supposed gay man, refuse to sign this brief to be submitted before the Supreme Court?

    Are you saying that these electronic signatures are not attached to the brief being submitted?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/09/supreme-court-gay-marriage/23147563/
    ...The first name on the brief will be that of Edie Windsor...

    Americans interested in signing the so-called "amicus" brief can go to HRC.org and add their names. The brief must be filed with the court by March 6.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2015 5:41 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    MGINSD saidVERY well written brief. How many of you know that Prof. Dale Carpenter of the UofMN Law School, is a former President of Lag Cabin Republicans' Houston chapter? Out of respect for his and the other authors' work product, I would not presume to "sign" the brief, HRC's urgings (read, thinly disguised Democratic fundraising) notwithstanding.


    Did you just say--and attempt discouraging others from signing--that you, a supposed gay man, refuse to sign this brief to be submitted before the Supreme Court?

    Are you saying that these electronic signatures are not attached to the brief being submitted?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/09/supreme-court-gay-marriage/23147563/
    ...The first name on the brief will be that of Edie Windsor...

    Americans interested in signing the so-called "amicus" brief can go to HRC.org and add their names. The brief must be filed with the court by March 6.


    I said what I said; don't rewrite what I said. As a member of the SCOTUS Bar, I consider it unprofessional to sign onto another's work, especially when it's as well done as this brief is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2015 5:44 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    theantijock said
    MGINSD saidVERY well written brief. How many of you know that Prof. Dale Carpenter of the UofMN Law School, is a former President of Lag Cabin Republicans' Houston chapter? Out of respect for his and the other authors' work product, I would not presume to "sign" the brief, HRC's urgings (read, thinly disguised Democratic fundraising) notwithstanding.


    Did you just say--and attempt discouraging others from signing--that you, a supposed gay man, refuse to sign this brief to be submitted before the Supreme Court?

    Are you saying that these electronic signatures are not attached to the brief being submitted?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/09/supreme-court-gay-marriage/23147563/
    ...The first name on the brief will be that of Edie Windsor...

    Americans interested in signing the so-called "amicus" brief can go to HRC.org and add their names. The brief must be filed with the court by March 6.


    I said what I said; don't rewrite what I said. As a member of the SCOTUS Bar, I consider it unprofessional to sign onto another's work, especially when it's as well done as this brief is.


    Certainly it would be wrong for you to sign in taking credit for another person's work.

    So are you saying that you refuse to sign because you fear someone might mistake you as the author of thinking that was not yours?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2015 6:47 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    MGINSD said
    theantijock said
    MGINSD saidVERY well written brief. How many of you know that Prof. Dale Carpenter of the UofMN Law School, is a former President of Lag Cabin Republicans' Houston chapter? Out of respect for his and the other authors' work product, I would not presume to "sign" the brief, HRC's urgings (read, thinly disguised Democratic fundraising) notwithstanding.


    Did you just say--and attempt discouraging others from signing--that you, a supposed gay man, refuse to sign this brief to be submitted before the Supreme Court?

    Are you saying that these electronic signatures are not attached to the brief being submitted?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/09/supreme-court-gay-marriage/23147563/
    ...The first name on the brief will be that of Edie Windsor...

    Americans interested in signing the so-called "amicus" brief can go to HRC.org and add their names. The brief must be filed with the court by March 6.


    I said what I said; don't rewrite what I said. As a member of the SCOTUS Bar, I consider it unprofessional to sign onto another's work, especially when it's as well done as this brief is.


    Certainly it would be wrong for you to sign in taking credit for another person's work.

    So are you saying that you refuse to sign because you fear someone might mistake you as the author of thinking that was not yours?


    Again, no; that's what you're saying, from behind the screen you've raised around yourself. You're not an HRC staffer by any chance, are you? It's obvious you've no training in the law or its ethics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2015 7:03 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    theantijock said
    MGINSD said
    theantijock said
    MGINSD saidVERY well written brief. How many of you know that Prof. Dale Carpenter of the UofMN Law School, is a former President of Lag Cabin Republicans' Houston chapter? Out of respect for his and the other authors' work product, I would not presume to "sign" the brief, HRC's urgings (read, thinly disguised Democratic fundraising) notwithstanding.


    Did you just say--and attempt discouraging others from signing--that you, a supposed gay man, refuse to sign this brief to be submitted before the Supreme Court?

    Are you saying that these electronic signatures are not attached to the brief being submitted?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/09/supreme-court-gay-marriage/23147563/
    ...The first name on the brief will be that of Edie Windsor...

    Americans interested in signing the so-called "amicus" brief can go to HRC.org and add their names. The brief must be filed with the court by March 6.


    I said what I said; don't rewrite what I said. As a member of the SCOTUS Bar, I consider it unprofessional to sign onto another's work, especially when it's as well done as this brief is.


    Certainly it would be wrong for you to sign in taking credit for another person's work.

    So are you saying that you refuse to sign because you fear someone might mistake you as the author of thinking that was not yours?


    Again, no; that's what you're saying, from behind the screen you've raised around yourself. You're not an HRC staffer by any chance, are you? It's obvious you've no training in the law or its ethics.


    So you're saying that even given whatever restraints you see ethically placed upon yourself by your profession, you had no intent to discourage others to support HRC's People's Brief project?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2015 8:15 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    MGINSD said
    theantijock said
    MGINSD said
    theantijock said
    MGINSD saidVERY well written brief. How many of you know that Prof. Dale Carpenter of the UofMN Law School, is a former President of Lag Cabin Republicans' Houston chapter? Out of respect for his and the other authors' work product, I would not presume to "sign" the brief, HRC's urgings (read, thinly disguised Democratic fundraising) notwithstanding.


    Did you just say--and attempt discouraging others from signing--that you, a supposed gay man, refuse to sign this brief to be submitted before the Supreme Court?

    Are you saying that these electronic signatures are not attached to the brief being submitted?

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/09/supreme-court-gay-marriage/23147563/
    ...The first name on the brief will be that of Edie Windsor...

    Americans interested in signing the so-called "amicus" brief can go to HRC.org and add their names. The brief must be filed with the court by March 6.


    I said what I said; don't rewrite what I said. As a member of the SCOTUS Bar, I consider it unprofessional to sign onto another's work, especially when it's as well done as this brief is.


    Certainly it would be wrong for you to sign in taking credit for another person's work.

    So are you saying that you refuse to sign because you fear someone might mistake you as the author of thinking that was not yours?


    Again, no; that's what you're saying, from behind the screen you've raised around yourself. You're not an HRC staffer by any chance, are you? It's obvious you've no training in the law or its ethics.


    So you're saying that even given whatever restraints you see ethically placed upon yourself by your profession, you had no intent to discourage others to support HRC's People's Brief project?


    Enough! If you can't accept a/o understand what I wrote, I'm sorry for your lack of understanding, however genuine it may or not be. You can get back to making those fundraising calls now, and while you're at it, stop hiding yourself online and come out from behind your screen, O Not-So-Great Oz.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2015 8:17 PM GMT

    “For Lawyers, Joining the Supreme Court Bar is a Vanity Trip”

    by Orin Kerr on March 21, 2013 5:01 pm
    The Associated Press has this story on what it means for lawyers to join the U.S. Supreme Court bar. As the article suggests, being a member of the Supreme Court bar doesn’t mean much. Pretty much any lawyer who pays the $200 is admitted, at least if they have been in good standing in a state bar for three years and get two other bar members to sign on.

    The article only briefly hints at the best reason to join the Supreme Court bar, at least if you live in or can travel to Washington, DC: You can get in to see Supreme Court arguments, and you get incredible seating when you do. The Court seats members of the bar separately from members of the public, and it seats bar members on a first-come, first-serve basis. You have to get there early for high-profile cases, as the line fills up. If all the seats are taken, you have to listen in remotely from the lawyer’s lounge (effectively, an overflow room). But often the bar section never fills up, which is especially likely when the cases that day involve areas of law without a strong connection to DC legal practice. On those days, bar members can walk in to the Supreme Court building just a few minutes before the argument starts and still get a seat. And the seats are the best in town. Bar members are seated in the rows immediately behind the lawyers arguing the case. So they’re very close to the action, with a front-row seat to watch the Justices and the advocates. And you can go as often as you like without a ticket. It’s one of the best deals in Washington, at least for Supreme Court nerds who are lawyers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2015 11:23 PM GMT
    MGINSD said poop-snathin-elephant-o.gif


    Did you mumble something? You really shouldn't speak with your mouth full.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2015 11:43 PM GMT
    Koastal said
    “For Lawyers, Joining the Supreme Court Bar is a Vanity Trip”

    by Orin Kerr on March 21, 2013 5:01 pm
    The Associated Press has this story on what it means for lawyers to join the U.S. Supreme Court bar. As the article suggests, being a member of the Supreme Court bar doesn’t mean much. Pretty much any lawyer who pays the $200 is admitted, at least if they have been in good standing in a state bar for three years and get two other bar members to sign on.

    The article only briefly hints at the best reason to join the Supreme Court bar, at least if you live in or can travel to Washington, DC: You can get in to see Supreme Court arguments, and you get incredible seating when you do. The Court seats members of the bar separately from members of the public, and it seats bar members on a first-come, first-serve basis. You have to get there early for high-profile cases, as the line fills up. If all the seats are taken, you have to listen in remotely from the lawyer’s lounge (effectively, an overflow room). But often the bar section never fills up, which is especially likely when the cases that day involve areas of law without a strong connection to DC legal practice. On those days, bar members can walk in to the Supreme Court building just a few minutes before the argument starts and still get a seat. And the seats are the best in town. Bar members are seated in the rows immediately behind the lawyers arguing the case. So they’re very close to the action, with a front-row seat to watch the Justices and the advocates. And you can go as often as you like without a ticket. It’s one of the best deals in Washington, at least for Supreme Court nerds who are lawyers.


    Just one problem w/ your latest disinformative post: I've actually practiced before SCOTUS several times: once on an amicus brief in an admiralty case, once seeking cert in a gay rights case against the GOP, and twice opposing cert petitions brought by a corporations and individuals seeking to evade CA's laws regulating medical professionals.

    "It doesn't get much better than this."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2015 11:46 PM GMT
    Koastal said
    “For Lawyers, Joining the Supreme Court Bar is a Vanity Trip”

    by Orin Kerr on March 21, 2013 5:01 pm
    The Associated Press has this story on what it means for lawyers to join the U.S. Supreme Court bar. As the article suggests, being a member of the Supreme Court bar doesn’t mean much. Pretty much any lawyer who pays the $200 is admitted, ....


    Oh, that's fucking hysterical. So the claim is pretty much nothing but pretention? lolol. How surprising.

    MGINSD said

    As a member of the SCOTUS Bar book of the month club, I blablabla.


    appeal to authority fixed lolol

    Poor GOP counselor doesn't quite get that his courtroom antics won't work in the real world where people can, you know, see through his bullshit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2015 2:28 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    Koastal said
    “For Lawyers, Joining the Supreme Court Bar is a Vanity Trip”

    by Orin Kerr on March 21, 2013 5:01 pm
    The Associated Press has this story on what it means for lawyers to join the U.S. Supreme Court bar. As the article suggests, being a member of the Supreme Court bar doesn’t mean much. Pretty much any lawyer who pays the $200 is admitted, ....


    Oh, that's fucking hysterical. So the claim is pretty much nothing but pretention? lolol. How surprising.

    MGINSD said

    As a member of the SCOTUS Bar book of the month club, I blablabla.


    appeal to authority fixed lolol

    Poor GOP counselor doesn't quite get that his courtroom antics won't work in the real world where people can, you know, see through his bullshit.


    I guess I was wrong; it DOES get better, a LOT more!