Posted on 09/12/2015 11:43:39 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Attorneys who brought the Ohio lawsuit that led to a Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage want a judge to approve their request for more than $1 million in legal fees and expenses from the state. […]
The Cincinnati lawyers represented James Obergefell, who sued Ohio’s health director for refusing to list him as the surviving spouse on his husband’s death certificate. …
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
I would say if the state brought the lawsuit against them, then yes, depending on the applicable law. But if they sued the state then no.
The liberal view will be that he is entitled for legal fees and even punitive damages, since he sued to overturn laws which liberals loathe.
I thought they did it for love, not money?
#MoneyWins
Its all about LOVE the signs say...
LMFAO..
Its all about MONEY AND POWER!
Follow the money, liberals do.
Obergefell is bending and twisting the intent and purpose of Loser Pays statutes as the defendant who wss ultimately legally and morally correct would have to pay out to the plaintiff.
I suspect that the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was a setup as evidenced by pre-FDR era Supreme Court case precedents which clearly indicate that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for healthcare purposes.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
Winning their case wasn’t enough.
Hint: It will NEVER be enough.
And Luther thought that the Church selling indulgences was bad...
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.