FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 10/20/2014 5:20:01 PM PDT by Faith Presses On
....Arizona Attorney General Tim Horne just cited a rule of civil procedure in refusing to defend his state's ban on same-sex marriage. And if his theory is correct, opponents of marriage equality may be procedurally barred from ever getting a gay marriage case to the Supreme Court again.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
I don’t think this is a Rule 11 situation.
Author: Mark Joseph Stern
Mark Joseph Stern
A procedural rule could.....
Rid the nation of “progressive” politicians...and eliminate the procedural rule....
Said that some time ago. And I agree ... obviously.
The Rules aren’t promulgated by politicians. (But trust me, conservatives wouldn’t change these rules). They are promulgated by SCOTUS via the Rules Enabling Act.
This idiot thinks that defending a state same-sex marriage ban is “frivolous” under Rule 11 because, although SCOTUS has issued a substantive ruling on the issue, it has “swatted away” other similar cases?
Speaking as an attorney who practices almost exclusively in Federal courts, allow me to say hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Gay-marriage supporters got it legalized the old-fashioned way:
They cheated.
This is why I am on the verge of never voting Repuke again
Yeah Rule 11 a stretch except on the Rocket Docket in EDVA. Been awhile since I’ve been there but I think they thought everything was a Rule 11 violation. lol
Thank you.
As a very frustrated “Californian” I hereby once again protest the overthrowing of the people’s will here on Proposition 8!
refusing to defend his state’s ban on same-sex marriage
And every resident in Arizona should start flooding the State Bar Association with Abandonment of Client complaints.
bump
“But all that changed over the last few weeks, as the justices have swatted away every single request to rule on gay marriage bans. So extreme is the court’s laissez-faire attitude that it refuses to stay lower courts’ pro-gay rulings, allowing couples to wed immediately.”
There it is and, that is everything we need to know and already knew.
The justices, even the allegedly conservative justices, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito have told us that they don’t care about Traditional Marriage and they wish to have the lower courts impose Gay Marriage from sea to shining sea.
Conservatives worked hard to see Roberts, Aloto, Thomas and Scilia appointed to and confirmed to the SCOTUS and they in turn force Gay Marriage on America.
We now know, that they do not stand with us.
What are some other cases where the Supreme Court has reversed itself in a matter of a few years?
It's not, until the Supreme Court rules. (A denial of cert. ends the case as far as the parties to that particular appeal are concerned, but sets no precedent for other cases.) The Arizona AG is just looking for an excuse not to continue to press the issue.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The AG in most states also has a legal obligation to defend the State’s laws until there is a clear declaration by the highest court that it is unconstitutional/unlawful. But when the AG doesn’t want to uphold the law (think California as another example) the administration and AG just roll over and play dead.
DNC: Thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.