FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 10/14/2014 11:07:23 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian
Law360, Los Angeles (October 10, 2014, 8:14 PM ET) -- The U.S. Supreme Court refused Friday to grant an emergency stay preventing Idaho from issuing marriage licenses and recognizing same-sex nuptials from out of state, greenlighting the Ninth Circuit to enter an order allowing its ruling to go into effect.
The short order included no reasoning for the decision, stating simply that the Idaho governor's application for a stay, which had been granted by Justice Anthony Kennedy on Wednesday, was denied, and that Justice Kennedy's order was vacated.
(Excerpt) Read more at law360.com ...
SCOTUS ping.
They made their ruling, now let them send their armies to enforce it.
These clown “judges” and their courts are really on a sexual deviant trip right now. I wish they just come out with their “anything goes” ruling and get this retarded crap over with. The world has gone to he!! anyway so why drag this sexual deviant worship out any longer.
This happened last Friday....why post it today?
What army? The IRS.
The article appeared on Law 360 today, which is where I saw it.
IOW Roberts is applying Ginsberg’s roe vs wade tactic. “boil the frog” and decide that way.
I don't think Roberts is on the gay marriage side-- he wrote the dissent in Windsor, last year's DOMA case. I think it's Ginsburg herself, along with Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor, who prefer not to have SCOTUS rule on this until most of the country has come to accept gay marriage as routine. I think Roberts, along with Scalia, Alito and Thomas, are voting against hearing these cases because they prefer a lot of bad lower court rulings to one bad SCOTUS ruling.
If it came to that, I have no doubt that Obama would. (He has precedent: Eisenhower federalized the National Guard, and called out the regular Army, when Arkansas refused to obey court orders to desegregate Little Rock Central High School.) But I don't see any sign that it will come to that: has even one State's Governor said they were going to resist these court orders?
That’s how I see it. She commented on the backlash that Roe received, and pretty much stated flat-out that the court would seek to avoid giving opponents one headliner-type court case around which they could center their efforts.
I say too late - we already have a huge target to see overturned: Lawrence v Texas.
Once you topple Lawrence and go back to Bowers, our legal footing is much, much more solid.
Aside from a Constitutional amendment, how could Lawrence be overturned?
I don’t see a path as to how Lawrence could be overturned in the courts.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
That’s the million-dollar question.
The easy answer is to elect presidents who will nominate strict constructionists to the bench, but at this point I don’t trust most Republican presidents to do so with the same consistency that Democrats put-up liberals.
My Senators know that if they vote to advance or confirm anyone to the right of Bork/Scalia, they can say goodbye to my support forever. More folks need to apply pressure. We’ve gotta attack both the nomination and the confirmation parts of the process, just as insurance.
“My Senators know that if they vote to advance or confirm anyone to the right of Bork/Scalia, they can say goodbye to my support forever.”
What do you have against jurists who would be to the right of Bork or Scalia?
SCOTUS doesn't have the final say. The states and the people have the final say.
Along with state nullification of unconstitutional federal acts is financial independence from the feds and the IRS. States need to wean themselves from federal funding thereby revoking IRS authority.
Eisenhower was enforcing the 14th Amendment of the Constitution which specifically forbids state law forcing segregation. Eisenhower's enforcement was valid.
Obama would be enforcing unconstitutional federal action overturning state law regarding marriage, something over which the feds have no constitutional authority. Obama's enforcement would be invalid.
Being in the right counts for something and among other things, would give a state the moral high ground. People fight harder when they know they are justly fighting for their legitimate freedom.
I’m not in the slightest comparing same-sex marriage to desegregation— I’m only pointing out that the President has the power to use the military to enforce federal court orders, and that prior presidents haven’t hesitated to use it.
PN,
I largely agree...
but the Judiciary was created to adjudicate the laws passed by Congress. Congress can always change the laws, if they do not like the adjudication. States can nullify the laws as unConstitutional, but if not unConsitutional, have little choice but violence.
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.