House GOP to ask justices by month's end to take on same-sex marriage issue - Polidicks

[QUOTE]Washington (CNN) -- House Republicans have signaled they plan to ask the Supreme Court by month's end to get involved in a constitutional fight over same-sex marriage. In a federal court filing Wednesday in Connecticut, the House of Representatives' Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group asked a judge to put on hold consideration of a pending lawsuit in that state over the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The 1996 congressional law defines marriage for federal purposes as exclusively between a man and a woman. A separate federal appeals court based in Boston last month struck as unconstitutional a key part of DOMA, ruling the federal government cannot deny tax, health and pension benefits to same-sex couples in states where they can legally marry. That ruling is a boost for gay rights advocates and the Obama administration, which in a rare move, has refused to defend a federal law in court. Lawyers for House Republicans, who have now picked up defense of DOMA, said pending court challenges in other jurisdictions should now be put on hold until the justices ultimately decide whether to take up the separate case from Massachusetts. The first step would be for congressional leaders to formally ask the justices to intervene, by filing a so-called "petition for certiorari." In their motion this week in the current Connecticut dispute, GOP leaders said they would do that "by the end of the month," predicting it would be a "good candidate for Supreme Court review." The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Boston, did not rule on the federal law's other key provision: states that do not allow same-sex marriages cannot be forced to recognize such unions performed in other states. Traditionally, marriages in one jurisdiction are considered valid across the country. DOMA was enacted in 1996, when Hawaii was considering legalizing same-sex marriage. Marriage between two males or two females is legal in the District of Columbia and six states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and Washington state. It set to be legal in Maryland next January, but implementation could be delayed by opponents placing the question on the November ballot. Many other states, including New Jersey, Illinois, Delaware, Rhode Island and Hawaii, have legalized domestic partnerships and civil unions for such couples -- a step designed in most cases to provide the same rights of marriage under state law. But other states have passed laws or state constitutional amendments banning such marriages. The 1st Circuit appeals court said it recognized how divisive the issue is, and noted it may ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide. But this decision is the first at this judicial stage to find the heart of the law unconstitutional. "Many Americans believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and most Americans live in states where that is the law today," said Judge Michael Boudin, appointed to the bench in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush. "One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage. Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest." It is in effect only within states with gay marriage laws covered by the 1st Circuit -- Massachusetts and New Hampshire -- and has limited enforcement. That means there will be no immediate eligibility for financial benefits currently denied same-sex married couples. No change is likely until the high court decides the matter. The separate Connecticut challenge was brought by same-sex couples there and in Vermont and New Hampshire, who are all legally married. They challenge DOMA on equal protection laws. Lawyers for those plaintiffs indicated they would oppose the House leaders' motion to stay the case until and if the high court decides whether to take up similar challenges. The high court begins its summer recess late next week, and the justices would not likely make a decision on accepting the appeals until early October at the earliest. Oral arguments would not likely be held until early next year. DOMA is being officially defended in court by House Republicans, led by Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who stepped in after the Justice Department refused to participate. The Obama administration announced last year it believed the law to be unconstitutional. A bill known as the Respect for Marriage Act is working its way through Congress and would repeal DOMA. The larger issue has been working along two legal tracks. A federal appeals court last month ruled against California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, arguing the ban unconstitutionally singles out gays and lesbians for discrimination. In a split decision, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the state's Proposition 8 "works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians" by denying their right to civil marriage in violation of the 14th Amendment. These latest developments signal the first high court debate over same-sex marriage could be over federal, not state laws. The justices would have ultimate discretion to accept one, both, or neither case -- perhaps deferring judicial review until a later time, after other lower courts have had time to debate the matter.[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/politics/house-gop-scotus-marriage/index.html[/url]

Interesting...

In my head, I still keep asking myself why this still is an issue at all.

hopefully justices just go "all men are created equal" -- its taken to mean people in general now bugger off gay marriage attackers

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;36463902]In my head, I still keep asking myself why this still is an issue at all.[/QUOTE]Because of religious beliefs stating that it's wrong, or from people just thinking that it's wrong, or both.

I wish the Supreme Court was reliable enough to trust in situations like this, but it seems like they're the least predictable branch of government of all. Whenever the Supreme Court gets involved with something big I can't help but get nervous. It's like a deformed limb growing out of the otherwise structurally sound (though not always benevolent) body of the federal government.

[QUOTE=Aredbomb;36463932]I wish the Supreme Court was reliable enough to trust in situations like this, but it seems like they're the least predictable branch of government of all. Whenever the Supreme Court gets involved with something big I can't help but get nervous. It's like a deformed limb growing out of the otherwise structurally sound (though not always benevolent) body of the federal government.[/QUOTE] I feel like the Supreme Court is currently the best branch of government in the U.S. right now. Is there anything that comes to mind in recent history that has caused uproar?

[QUOTE=DanTehMan;36464005]I feel like the Supreme Court is currently the best branch of government in the U.S. right now. Is there anything that comes to mind in recent history that has caused uproar?[/QUOTE] Citizens United

It will be absolutely hilarious if they unanimously tell the GOP "Yeah gay marriage is legal, banning it is against the constitution, and you guys are bloody idiots for even asking us to ban it."

"Judicial activism is wrong and unconstitutional unless we are doing it" --GOP [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] I'm glad we have folks going to the highest court in the land to make sure it's okay if two dudes fuck in the privacy of their own bedroom. Fucking Republicans.

[QUOTE=DanTehMan;36464005]I feel like the Supreme Court is currently the best branch of government in the U.S. right now. Is there anything that comes to mind in recent history that has caused uproar?[/QUOTE] Didn't they say last month that corporations should be treated like individuals or something along those lines?

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;36466773]Didn't they say last month that corporations should be treated like individuals or something along those lines?[/QUOTE] Does this mean we get to put BP in jail for littering

Religion should have no place in law making. Sort it out America.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;36469570]Religion should have no place in law making. Sort it out America.[/QUOTE] Republicans are trying to emulate such spiritual masters as Al Qaeda and the Taliban so it's hard but we are making progress.

Except for those two states DOMA is pretty much a figurehead that shows what huge dicks we are.

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;36463902]In my head, I still keep asking myself why this still is an issue at all.[/QUOTE] I know right. Maybe after this civil issue is settled (I can't see the SP comdemning gay marriage) we can focus on more pressing matters like prohibition. Which sounds silly in of itself why can't we having sweeping reforms damnit?

[QUOTE=TestECull;36466554]It will be absolutely hilarious if they unanimously tell the GOP "Yeah gay marriage is legal, banning it is against the constitution, and you guys are bloody idiots for even asking us to ban it."[/QUOTE] I wish. What's going to happen is that all the conservative justices will vote against gay marriage, while the liberal justices will vote for it. Leaving everything up to Anthony Kennedy.

[QUOTE=Aredbomb;36463932]I wish the Supreme Court was reliable enough to trust in situations like this, but it seems like they're the least predictable branch of government of all. Whenever the Supreme Court gets involved with something big I can't help but get nervous. It's like a deformed limb growing out of the otherwise structurally sound (though not always benevolent) body of the federal government.[/QUOTE] Er, no. You can pretty much predict 70% of the SCOTUS results, they're very reliable, more so than Congress. The only reason why people say stuff like that is because they only know the SCOTUS from the 15 minutes news snippets about the big controversial cases that could go either way. Considering that the Court almost always votes in favor of liberty/rights/freedom/the people, as opposed to Congress and the Executive (especially the Executive), I'd hardly call them a "deformed limb" in a "structurally sound" federal government. More like the last bastion of sanity. I also have to say that I've never seen the Court, in the recent years excluding a couple "minor" cases, ever go against established precedent or Constitutional law- even cases where people didn't like the outcome, like Citizens United, still had Constitutional and legal precedent that they acted in line with. You have to remember that just because they don't decide on the opinion that one side likes doesn't mean that they're making a bad call. [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Melkor;36474656]I wish. What's going to happen is that all the conservative justices will vote against gay marriage, while the liberal justices will vote for it. Leaving everything up to Anthony Kennedy.[/QUOTE] no knowledge of how the court works ^ The idea that the justices have notable bias and that it affects their decisions is a media scare tactic. There has never been a court case that has fallen along political lines in recent times that didn't have a legal reason to do so. Most of the cases the Court sees are seen from an objective legal standpoint, only cases where there's no legal or judicial precedent ever have partisanship involved.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36474738'] no knowledge of how the court works ^ The idea that the justices have notable bias and that it affects their decisions is a media scare tactic. There has never been a court case that has fallen along political lines in recent times that didn't have a legal reason to do so. Most of the cases the Court sees are seen from an objective legal standpoint, only cases where there's no legal or judicial precedent ever have partisanship involved.[/QUOTE] The constitution was a document that was designed to be open to interpretation, not a clear cut set of rules with strictly defined parameters. That's why we have a supreme court to interpret the meaning of the constitution and decide which rights take precedence over others. And guess what, conservative and liberal justices often have wildly different interpretations of the constitution. Which is why controversial decisions such as this one are so often split among party lines. Try actually learning about the constitution before telling me I don't know how the supreme court works.

[QUOTE=Melkor;36475328]The constitution was a document that was designed to be open to interpretation, not a clear cut set of rules with strictly defined parameters. That's why we have a supreme court to interpret the meaning of the constitution and decide which rights take precedence over others. And guess what, conservative and liberal justices often have wildly different interpretations of the constitution. Which is why controversial decisions such as this one are so often split among party lines. Try actually learning about the constitution before telling me I don't know how the supreme court works.[/QUOTE] That's crap. If the Constitution is open to anyone's interpretation, then it's worthless as you can "interpret" whatever you please from it.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36475577]That's crap. If the Constitution is open to anyone's interpretation, then it's worthless as you can "interpret" whatever you please from it.[/QUOTE] It's open to the interpretation of supreme court justices. Not anyone's.

[QUOTE=Melkor;36475328]The constitution was a document that was designed to be open to interpretation, not a clear cut set of rules with strictly defined parameters. That's why we have a supreme court to interpret the meaning of the constitution and decide which rights take precedence over others. And guess what, conservative and liberal justices often have wildly different interpretations of the constitution. Which is why controversial decisions such as this one are so often split among party lines. Try actually learning about the constitution before telling me I don't know how the supreme court works.[/QUOTE] Telling this to a political science major with a constitutional law focus in his minor. Yea, sure. What you don't get is that the Constitution has been rigidly defined in a legal sense for a very long time because of previous precedent. The majority of cases the court sees are issues of precedent and not of interpretation, that's why we only see landmark cases every now and then. The media likes to spin it to make it seem like there's a clear cut liberal-conservative interpretation of every case but there simply isn't- most cases are bi-partisan opinions and ideology has little to do with it. While a justice may request or wish to see a precedent revisited, in most cases that's not going to happen- take FCC v. Fox, which was just recent, where it was a 8-0 decision with one concurrence where they argued that the precedent used in the case should be revisited. The Court hasn't interpreted the Constitution in ages, they use precedent that interpreted it. And guess what, no, there aren't wildly different interpretations at all because almost all justices agree with the precedent they apply today. You don't get to be a justice by ignoring or disagreeing with precedents, you get to be a justice because you know them and you know the law, and you make your way in a legal or legislative career using them. In the majority of cases, liberal and conservative justices will only disagree on two issues: issues of morals not defined in the constitution or precedent, and issues of politics not defined in law. As I explained in the recent thread about the healthcare reform decision, there is no way to predict what the outcome will be, and there never has been. People have spent lots of time and money on being able to predict an opinion but it has never been successful, because there is no clear liberal or conservative cut in the court. There hasn't been since the fifties. And the reason for that is because it has little to do with ideology and everything to do with the lack or existence of precedent and the morality or legality of it, as well as what issue the justices focus on. Again, the only time the court is on the issue of ideology is when it comes to morality, or ill-defined legality, which isn't all that often comparatively. Citizens United is an example of this, where there was no precedent and it lead to a ideological split. But most cases aren't like that. In 2011, of around 60 cases with opinions released, only ~14 were 5-4 decisions.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36475690']Telling this to a political science major with a constitutional law focus in his minor. Yea, sure. What you don't get is that the Constitution has been rigidly defined in a legal sense for a very long time because of previous precedent. The majority of cases the court sees are issues of precedent and not of interpretation, that's why we only see landmark cases every now and then. The media likes to spin it to make it seem like there's a clear cut liberal-conservative interpretation of every case but there simply isn't- most cases are bi-partisan opinions and ideology has little to do with it. While a justice may request or wish to see a precedent revisited, in most cases that's not going to happen- take FCC v. Fox, which was just recent, where it was a 8-0 decision with one concurrence where they argued that the precedent used in the case should be revisited. The Court hasn't interpreted the Constitution in ages, they use precedent that interpreted it. And guess what, no, there aren't wildly different interpretations at all because almost all justices agree with the precedent they apply today. You don't get to be a justice by ignoring or disagreeing with precedents, you get to be a justice because you know them and you know the law, and you make your way in a legal or legislative career using them. In the majority of cases, liberal and conservative justices will only disagree on two issues: issues of morals not defined in the constitution or precedent, and issues of politics not defined in law. As I explained in the recent thread about the healthcare reform decision, there is no way to predict what the outcome will be, and there never has been. People have spent lots of time and money on being able to predict an opinion but it has never been successful, because there is no clear liberal or conservative cut in the court. There hasn't been since the fifties. And the reason for that is because it has little to do with ideology and everything to do with the lack or existence of precedent and the morality or legality of it, as well as what issue the justices focus on. Again, the only time the court is on the issue of ideology is when it comes to morality, or ill-defined legality, which isn't all that often comparatively. Citizens United is an example of this, where there was no precedent and it lead to a ideological split. But most cases aren't like that. In 2011, of around 60 cases with opinions released, only ~14 were 5-4 decisions.[/QUOTE] Haha are you kidding? You don't have to agree with all the precedents to get selected as a supreme court judge. You just have to know them. Do you think Justice Scalia agrees with Roe V. Wade? Precedents often get overruled over time. They're meant to be obeyed by the lower courts, not to be set in stone as constitutional law. Even if precedents are often deferred to by the Supreme Court. Bowers v. Hardwick was only overturned in 2003 And as you already admitted issues of morality are often split among party lines. The issue of gay rights is a moral issue, which is what we're arguing about. I never once said that a majority of cases were split. I said controversial cases such as this were often split. Which comes back to interpretation again. I'm willing to bet that in this case the Conservative justices will argue for states rights, while the liberal judges will argue for individual rights.

I'll have to watch Fox News for this, they'll be flipping their shit when gay marriage is allowed.

[QUOTE=Melkor;36476044]Haha are you kidding? You don't have to agree with all the precedents to get selected as a supreme court judge. You just have to know them. Do you think Justice Scalia agrees with Roe V. Wade? Precedents often get overruled over time. They're meant to be obeyed by the lower courts, not to be set in stone as constitutional law. Even if precedents are often deferred to by the Supreme Court. Bowers v. Hardwick was only overturned in 2003 And as you already admitted issues of morality are often split among party lines. The issue of gay rights is a moral issue, which is what we're arguing about.[/QUOTE] It CAN be, but it could also be a legal one. The thing is that, the Court isn't going to do this just because the House asks them, there needs to be a case to reach them first. DOMA won't reach the Court for a bit unless the GOP sues the US or something. The case that will hit first will probably be Perry v. Brown, which would place it half in the legal ground and half in the moral, and has no precedent, and could definitely go either way. Then again, they very well could just take Perry and focus on the California Appeals Court ruling and ignore the gay marriage thing all together, like they did with Lawrence v. Texas. They won't be able to do that with DOMA. But you're still right, it will be an ideological decision either way

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];36476247']It CAN be, but it could also be a legal one. The thing is that, the Court isn't going to do this just because the House asks them, there needs to be a case to reach them first. DOMA won't reach the Court for a bit unless the GOP sues the US or something. The case that will hit first will probably be Perry v. Brown, which would place it half in the legal ground and half in the moral, and has no precedent, and could definitely go either way. Then again, they very well could just take Perry and focus on the California Appeals Court ruling and ignore the gay marriage thing all together, like they did with Lawrence v. Texas. They won't be able to do that with DOMA. But you're still right, it will be an ideological decision either way[/QUOTE] Ok cool. But if you agree that it will be an ideological decision, then what was your beef with my original post?

[QUOTE=Dogchow33;36476168]I'll have to watch Fox News for this, they'll be flipping their shit when gay marriage is allowed.[/QUOTE] Don't. I'll have it covered within the hour.

[QUOTE=Dogchow33;36476168]I'll have to watch Fox News for this, they'll be flipping their shit when gay marriage is allowed.[/QUOTE] [B]GAY MARRIAGE APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT? IS THE SUPREME COURT COMMIES? TONIGHT AT 11.[/B]

[QUOTE=Melkor;36476395]Ok cool. But if you agree that it will be an ideological decision, then what was your beef with my original post?[/QUOTE] Because it very well might not be, it's very hard to tell. It's impossible to tell. I think it will be, but my issue was the certainty that you said that it was going to be a 5-4. I agree that it will, but there's no certainty. I think I misinterpreted your certainty in that as being an overall thing and I was long-winded in saying that it's hardly ever partisan.

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;36463902]In my head, I still keep asking myself why this still is an issue at all.[/QUOTE] Same thing for why it took so long for African Americans to gain rights. People in the government are assholes stuck in the past, just rocks waiting to be covered by dirt and moss.