Posted on 04/19/2017 7:09:32 PM PDT by Timpanagos1
Texas is on the hook for more than $600,000 in fees associated with its unsuccessful fight to defend the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Affirming a lower court ruling on the fees, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals this week shot down Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s challenge to the award amount granted to two same-sex couples who had sued the state.
A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit ruled that the district court "acted will within its broad discretion" in awarding those legal fees.
The fees stem from a lawsuit filed years ago by Cleopatra DeLeon and her wife, Nicole Dimetman, and Mark Phariss and his husband, Victor Holmes, who challenged the constitutionality of the state’s now-defunct same-sex marriage ban
(Excerpt) Read more at texastribune.org ...
5 unelected supreme court judges make up a constitutional law and it’s the state’s fault...
Anyone making 500k off boning or fishing their own gender has a leg up on honest work.
Where do I sign up?
Texas had an obligation to defend their law concerning same-sex marriage right up until the Obergefell decision. After that, there is nothing to defend but the article its not clear as to what time period the costs were incurred by the plaintiffs.
The state of Texas could have simply employed nullification. Marriage is not a federal issue. Courts do not make law. Texas’s marriage law is still on the books.
The state should refuse to pay a dime or concede. 5 unelected despoits in black robes don’t dictate the Constitution in contradiction to 230 years of practice.
If we allow this evil to stand there will be no law anywhere.
The faggots need to go away. They are scum.
Texas should pay the $600,000 but tax it at 200%.
ugh. Their ain’t enough money in the world....
Time to appeal to a higher court.
But drag feet until after Ginsberg is gone.
>ugh. Their ain’t enough money in the world....
Amen and Awomen....
The cosmic debris that we follow is disgusting .....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtx4ZJ1cwI0
Ahahahahahaha.
Take it all the way. I mean ALL the way.
Obergefell is illicit and can not be given any credence whatsoever.
True. A “Justice” system that promotes evil, dysfunctional behaviors caused by child abuse and neglect, and destroys the meaning of a word, marriage, removes Right Reason and Justice (virtue) from Just law.
It is unconstituitonal and can’t be done—the promotion of two males sodomizing each other is never protected and should still be a felony.
We no longer have a Justice System if homosexual “marriage” is allowed to stand. We are FORCING Satanism and Irrational “Law” (null and void) on the masses.
Homosexual “marriage” also reduces children to be bought and sold and denied their Natural Right from God to their biological parent WHICH IS A NATURAL RIGHT AND UNALIENABLE!!!!!!!!!!! Only Natural Rights FROM GOD are protected “Rights”.
If this evil dysfunctional behavior is made “Good” and a “Natural Right from God” ( it is a ‘right” from Satan and demonic religions), then we will remove science, biology, Reason and Logic from Just Law (which is impossible.).
This whole Marxist “gender” theory cr#p to make pederasty normal again like in paganism and satanism and islam, can NOT be allowed to stand in a civil society.
I would stick to the simple simple fact that ‘law’ is not law, if it can be radically changed in its application or meaning on a case by case basis according to the whim of the ‘judge’.
That is called Rule of men who wear black robes, not law.
The Rule of law, as debated, compromised, and passed by an elected legislator representing the people. Means the law must retain its exact same application and meaning from the time it was passed until the time it is repealed by that same legislator.
This is particularly true of a Constitutional law, which is passed by the states and their people acting as a super legislator.
There is no concept of ‘marriage’ in federal law, this is a state defined concept as it has been since day one. The Federal government thus has no legitimate authority to say one thing or the other about it.
Their choice is to eyther honor the states judgement in their own employee affairs or reject them. NEVER command them.
From the biological and cultural side, I of course agree with you. There is no point to the institution of marriage were it between biologically incomparable pairings.
If one side is said to have a superior claim of responsibility for the child, say being its biological parent, then it is invariably an uneven split rendering the binds of matrimony to protect that which is already broken pointless.
There is no such thing as a marriage between 2 people of the same sex, it is simply not possible in the laws of nature. Only in the laws of men are such natural and obvious lies possible.
No matter how much some people wish to uses the state to redefine nature, nature always trumps men, for men cannot escape nature less they cease to be men.
More like thousands of years of legal tradition.
“More like thousands of years of legal tradition.”
Legal tradition yes, but the laws in question are only between 230 and 150 years old. Legal Tradition while being a key element of actual common law and thus relevant. Is not nearly so relevant as actual law as demonstrated by hundreds of years of actual practice.
Now deemed by the arrogant and lawless employees in black robes to have been illegal.
I wonder when they are going to start rounding up all the people who followed the written law for the last 230 years and jailing them. Because that is precisely what they must do if their ‘interpretation’ of the law was an honest one.
Law cannot change except by act of the elected legislator, and unless they some how the court acquired the power to ‘change’ the law, the law either always prohibited their actions or always mandated it. It cannot be both under the rule of any law.
“Texas had an obligation to defend their law concerning same-sex marriage right up until the Obergefell decision. After that, there is nothing to defend but the article its not clear as to what time period the costs were incurred by the plaintiffs.”
If you accept that the law does not change except by act of a legislator, Texas still has an obligation to defend the law concerning marriage that was made by the legislator and enforced for 150+ years.
The lawless opinion of 5 federal employees in black robes does not and cannot be permitted to change the application of the law. Merely to decide the specific innocents or guilt in a specific case of law. A case Texas was not even a party to.
Texas either assumes the court is lawless in which case the correct action is refusal to submit, or it has to assume there were some other mitigating circumstances in the case such as the fact that the parties were not in fact of the same sex, in which case Texas’s still needs to protect its law.
The Federal court needs to be force to strike down each and every Act of defiance to their lawlessness again and again and again, for it is not their right to dictate new law.
Great post
Agree. They win because nobody will stand up to them. Where is Andrew Jackson when we need him?
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.