|
Post by Meshakhad on Nov 17, 2011 15:07:13 GMT -5
I personally hope it goes to the Supreme Court. Because we have a chance to win this outright, to bring about marriage equality across the nation. And because the reaction among conservatives would be a thing of beauty.
|
|
murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Nov 17, 2011 15:12:25 GMT -5
Ok now I'm a bit more excited. Ironbite-considering how laughable the arguments that were presented...I have some hope. Who cares how laughable the arguments against gay marriage are. Judges are human. Worse, they are politicians, which means they are ready to do really stupid things for the stupid people who put them in the position they are. The best you can hope for is a 5-4 victory that is likely to be overruled a few years later. I wouldn't even count on it.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Nov 17, 2011 15:23:28 GMT -5
The best you can hope for is a 5-4 victory that is likely to be overruled a few years later. It usually takes quite a bit of effort to get the Supreme Court to overturn an earlier Supreme Court ruling. And as for “a few years,” that is only likely to occur if those few years manage to see a change-up in the composition of said court. If the same nine people are in charge, why would they overturn their own ruling?
|
|
|
Post by Miles, The Slightly Off on Nov 17, 2011 16:13:53 GMT -5
I suppose all I can say on the matter is that I'm optimistic, but scared.
On the one hand, this leaves open the chance to legalize gay marriage nationwide, something that a lot of people have been wanting for a long, long time. It would be a momentous victory, one that has been a long time coming.
On the other hand...it could go the other direction, an idea which makes me very, very nervous.
I wish to be more optimistic on the subject like Itachi, however, there is too much at stake to not be worried.
I just hope that the judges make the right decision. After all of the things that have gone crazy recently, let's just hope that this one time, they do it right.
|
|
|
Post by Bezron on Nov 17, 2011 16:48:08 GMT -5
I suppose all I can say on the matter is that I'm optimistic, but scared. On the one hand, this leaves open the chance to legalize gay marriage nationwide, something that a lot of people have been wanting for a long, long time. It would be a momentous victory, one that has been a long time coming. On the other hand...it could go the other direction, an idea which makes me very, very nervous. I wish to be more optimistic on the subject like Itachi, however, there is too much at stake to not be worried. I just hope that the judges make the right decision. After all of the things that have gone crazy recently, let's just hope that this one time, they do it right. That's honestly a risk that needs to be taken. This can be solved on a state-by-state basis, but that doesn't solve the federal issue. This way, the federal issue is solved as well.
|
|
|
Post by foolishwisdom on Nov 17, 2011 17:27:53 GMT -5
I suppose all I can say on the matter is that I'm optimistic, but scared. On the one hand, this leaves open the chance to legalize gay marriage nationwide, something that a lot of people have been wanting for a long, long time. It would be a momentous victory, one that has been a long time coming. On the other hand...it could go the other direction, an idea which makes me very, very nervous. I wish to be more optimistic on the subject like Itachi, however, there is too much at stake to not be worried. I just hope that the judges make the right decision. After all of the things that have gone crazy recently, let's just hope that this one time, they do it right. That's honestly a risk that needs to be taken. This can be solved on a state-by-state basis, but that doesn't solve the federal issue. This way, the federal issue is solved as well. I agree: Though the worst might happen, it's not an excuse to cower over it, otherwise it'd be no better then the Right-Wingers. That being said, I'm very confidant Prop 8 will fall. Between opinion of same-sex marriage is being more positive, homophobic Republicans are looking to be disfavored, and people starting to see places like NOM for the BS that they really are, it's in the bag as far as I'm concerned. I'll even bet the reason for the appeal was to just get it over with, and declare same-sex marriage to be a constitutional right. What better place to hammer the homophobes, then from the top.
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Nov 17, 2011 17:36:52 GMT -5
This is a serious gamble. If it's successful, then it would prevent anti-same-sex-marriage laws from being enacted in the future. But since it's a Supreme Court ruling, if it's ruled constitutional then equal rights for the LGBT community are fucked for the next 20-30 years. I don't wanna wait that long.
|
|
|
Post by Meshakhad on Nov 17, 2011 20:37:49 GMT -5
If we lose in the Supreme Court, we still have three methods available to us:
1. Make court cases based on state constitutions. 2. Work through the state legislatures. 3. Referenda.
|
|
|
Post by VirtualStranger on Nov 17, 2011 20:46:06 GMT -5
As long as Kennedy keeps his current stance on S/S marriage, (and as long as Ginsberg doesn't step down anytime soon like it's been rumored that she would) then it should be a 5-4 vote.
I can't wait to see if this goes to the supreme court. How long would it take for it to get that far?
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Nov 17, 2011 23:12:19 GMT -5
As long as Kennedy keeps his current stance on S/S marriage, (and as long as Ginsberg doesn't step down anytime soon like it's been rumored that she would) then it should be a 5-4 vote. I can't wait to see if this goes to the supreme court. How long would it take for it to get that far? Even if Ginsberg does start to step down I doubt she'll do it before the 2012 elections, and she'll probably stay in if we have a republican win for those 4 years just to fuck them over. My guess is if she DOES step down, it'll only be after Obama's been reelected - and as we can see, the chances of that happening are quickly approaching certainty. The tea party is fizzling itself out and taking the republicans with them over the edge, they really don't have a chance in hell.
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Nov 18, 2011 2:15:58 GMT -5
I am personally worried about this. I read through the prop 8 summaries and while the pro-prop 8 side had very little evidence that they brought forward, they didn't just loose without a fight. They actually had a number of witnesses that they did not bring forward. Perhaps they are keeping their case in some kind of reserve to make a much stronger case when it gets to the supreme court.
Similarly, given the very conservative nature of the higher ups in the American congress and justice system which is polluted by personal agendas, I really worry. I read the summary of the ruling and to be blunt anyone who honestly follows the constitution would have to agree with it, but its ever about that, its about personal opinions of conservatives.
One good thing that counts strongly in favor of the LGBT side is that the judge made sure that as much was heard and that his ruling was as comprehensive as possible making any later cases much more solid in favour of the LGBT side.
Honestly I wish this could go to the supreme court soon and not take so many years. I really never understand why the legal system is so pointlessly drawn out. It makes it feel like the ultimate perversion of justice.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Nov 18, 2011 3:14:52 GMT -5
You cannot call witnesses in an appeal trial! Furthermore, the trial court's Findings of Fact cannot be overturned on appeal unless they can demonstrably be shown to be "clearly erroneous."
In an appeals trial, all you can do is argue that the trial court's Conclusions of Law do not follow from the Findings of Fact.
And the trial court in this case was sure to include many many Findings of Fact.
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Nov 18, 2011 4:57:12 GMT -5
You cannot call witnesses in an appeal trial! Furthermore, the trial court's Findings of Fact cannot be overturned on appeal unless they can demonstrably be shown to be "clearly erroneous." In an appeals trial, all you can do is argue that the trial court's Conclusions of Law do not follow from the Findings of Fact. And the trial court in this case was sure to include many many Findings of Fact. What cestle says, they didn't bring their case the first time around, there's no "oops, we meant to bring SUPRISE EXPERT #25!!!! -dramatic chord-" it's "yeah... you guys fucked up, we're arguing the appeal on the merits of that fuck-up." That's why it's their trojan horse - it doesn't matter if they could redo things with a better set of experts, they don't have the ability to. Oh sure, they'll bitch and moan "but we didn't call all our experts" - "well, why not?" "Be-be-because, those mean gays were going to persecute them, they were scared." "Well maybe they should have been braver, of the 3 witnesses you did call, 2 weren't actually experts and the third made a better case for the opposing side so....-coughs- this is kinda awkward, innit?" Case in point - they lost without a fight, their fight was crap. They were so sure their shit arguments would hold water they didn't even try. Or.. conversely, they realized at the 11th hour their shit arguments WOULDN'T hold water and wound up screwed. Either way, their fight was so lost it found Davy Jones Locker.
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Nov 18, 2011 5:27:08 GMT -5
They don't need a good argument. They argue with their wallets (or rather OUR wallets). That's how the Prop got passed in the first place . . . with a little help from people that weren't even in the #$#@$$%@ state!
|
|
|
Post by Miles, The Slightly Off on Dec 10, 2011 20:49:05 GMT -5
I don't wish to necro the thread, however, it appears that the 9th Circuit has already started on this.
The first video contains an argument that the tapes of the original trial should be released, the second contains the repeated argument that Judge Walker should have been recused due to gayness.
No results yet, as far as I know, but according to what I've been reading on the subject, the judges seem to be laughing at the arguments against gay marriage.
EDIT: Was the 9th Circuit, not the Supreme Court.
|
|