Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2014 Goal: $450.00 - To Date: $450.00 (100.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-15-2014, 06:24 PM   #41
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 7,987
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 743
Thanked 5,528 Times in 2,676 Posts
My Mood: Brooding
Default Re: Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill

Texas is next. District Court Judge Orlando Garcia heard arguments last Wednesday on a challenge to Texas' discriminatory law.
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Vis For This Useful Post:
harrison'samonster (02-15-2014)
Old 02-15-2014, 06:35 PM   #42
MACH1
Quest For Seven
Supporter
 
MACH1's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Potataho
Posts: 14,527
Member Number: 3236
Thanks: 1,903
Thanked 5,749 Times in 2,137 Posts
Default Re: Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddha Bus View Post
Although there is no excuse for a judge to not know the origins of that phrase, it doesn't change the fact that this country was founded on that principle.

Still, she and every other judge should know that.
Yep that was my point.
__________________


ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
MACH1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 06:44 PM   #43
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 7,987
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 743
Thanked 5,528 Times in 2,676 Posts
My Mood: Brooding
Default Re: Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill

PA will be the 21st state sometime this year.
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 07:33 PM   #44
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,248
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 2,575
Thanked 8,242 Times in 3,620 Posts
Default Re: Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill

Any orders will be stayed pending the Supremes getting to decide the issue - not certain if they can get a case on the 2014-2015 docket

In the meantime the district judges are having fun throwing Scalia's dissent in Windsor back in his face

One must feel for Antonin Scalia. Which is not to say precisely what one must feel for him, but still: the 77-year-old Supreme Court Justice surely did not need another reminder of his prescience on the future of marriage equality in America, and yet he got one, thanks to the latest court ruling striking down a ban on same-sex marriage — this time in Virginia, which as we know is for lovers.

It was less than eight months ago that Justice Scalia fulminated, in his special mocking way, about the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, which invalidated the core of the Defense of Marriage Act.

“The real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow,” Justice Scalia wrote, “is that DOMA is motivated by ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ couples in same-sex marriages.”

“How easy it is,” he went on, “indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.”

In other words, the justice was saying, it was only a matter of time before the court’s reasoning in Windsor — which was ostensibly limited to the federal government — would lead to the striking down of state laws banning same-sex marriage. As he put it: “No one should be fooled; it is just a matter of listening and waiting for the other shoe.”


The other shoe has now dropped several times.

In Virginia on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage. In a passage sprinkled with sarcasm, Judge Allen wrote that the propriety of invoking the Constitution’s protection against state laws, not only federal laws as in DOMA, “is described eloquently in a dissenting opinion authored by the Honorable Antonin Scalia,” before quoting from the justice’s Windsor dissent.

But Judge Allen is only the latest to have a little fun with Justice Scalia’s dire warnings.

The day before, a federal judge in Kentucky ordered that state to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed elsewhere. In finding that Windsor hinted at this result, U.S. District Judge John B. Heyburn II noted, “Indeed, Justice Scalia stated that Windsor indicated the way the Supreme Court would view future cases involving same-sex marriage ‘beyond mistaking.’”

In December, a federal judge in Ohio, Timothy Black, issued the same order to that state. “It is just as Justice Scalia predicted,” Judge Black wrote. “The lower courts are applying the Supreme Court’s decision [in Windsor], as they must, and the question is presented whether a state can do what the federal government cannot – i.e., discriminate against same-sex couples … simply because the majority of the voters don’t like homosexuality (or at least didn’t in 2004). Under the Constitution of the United States, the answer is no.”

And also in December, Robert J. Shelby, a federal judge in Utah, struck down that state’s same-sex marriage ban, noting wryly: “The court agrees with Justice Scalia’s interpretation of Windsor and finds that the important federalism concerns at issue here are nevertheless insufficient to save a state-law prohibition that denies the Plaintiffs their rights to due process and equal protection under the law.”

Judge Shelby wasn’t finished rubbing it in. Reaching back to the Supreme Court’s landmark 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated state anti-sodomy laws and from which Justice Scalia also vehemently dissented, Judge Shelby wrote, “The court therefore agrees with the portion of Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Lawrence in which Justice Scalia stated that the Court’s reasoning logically extends to protect an individual’s right to marry a person of the same sex.”

If the court could strike down an anti-sodomy law, Justice Scalia had reasoned then, “what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘the liberty protected by the Constitution’?”

This will keep happening. And someday soon, Justice Scalia will have the chance to deliver the most vitriolic “I told you so” in recent Supreme Court memory.


http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...iage-equality/
__________________
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken
Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Atlanta Dan For This Useful Post:
Buddha Bus (02-16-2014), JonM229 (02-16-2014)
Old 02-15-2014, 07:40 PM   #45
Vis
In Hoc
Supporter
 
Vis's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: SC
Posts: 7,987
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5117
Thanks: 743
Thanked 5,528 Times in 2,676 Posts
My Mood: Brooding
Default Re: Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill

Dan, have you seen an argument that wasn't rejected in Windsor? Kennedy's rationale leads to only one outcome unless a new theory of a legitimate state interest is argued.
__________________


All generalizations are dangerous.
Vis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2014, 08:14 PM   #46
SteelersCanada
Living Legend
Supporter
 
SteelersCanada's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 7,943
Member Number: 24400
Thanks: 6,121
Thanked 11,018 Times in 4,570 Posts
Default Re: Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bane View Post
I knew you were a pretty intolerant person to begin with, but supporting a bill that would effectively throw gay people into the Jim Crow era?

Why don't you take that boat you offered to the Obamas and take it back to the 1800s? Your disgusting excuse for "morals" will be more welcome there.
She's not really known for being tolerant. As long as we don't talk politics, religion, social issues or anything other than football, we're going to be ok.
SteelersCanada is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SteelersCanada For This Useful Post:
Bane (02-15-2014), harrison'samonster (02-15-2014)
Old 02-15-2014, 08:23 PM   #47
MasterOfPuppets
Living Legend
Supporter
 
MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 14,248
Gender: Male
Member Number: 1990
Thanks: 908
Thanked 3,909 Times in 1,658 Posts
Default Re: Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by caplovestroyp43 View Post
Go Ted Cruz!!!! I can't agree more with this. So glad there are some moral people left that recognize marriage between A MAN AND WOMAN ONLY!!!! Thank you!!!!

__________________
“If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” ― James Madison

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." -Thomas Jefferson

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." - Thomas Jefferson

MasterOfPuppets is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MasterOfPuppets For This Useful Post:
43Hitman (02-19-2014), Buddha Bus (02-16-2014), harrison'samonster (02-15-2014), SteelersCanada (02-15-2014)
Old 02-15-2014, 08:34 PM   #48
SteelersCanada
Living Legend
Supporter
 
SteelersCanada's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 7,943
Member Number: 24400
Thanks: 6,121
Thanked 11,018 Times in 4,570 Posts
Default Re: Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill

This has been, and will always be my take on gay marriage. 'Scuse the language.

SteelersCanada is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SteelersCanada For This Useful Post:
Buddha Bus (02-16-2014), harrison'samonster (02-15-2014), steelax04 (02-19-2014), Wagen (02-15-2014)
Old 02-15-2014, 08:55 PM   #49
Wagen
Bench Warmer
Supporter
 
Wagen's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: The Black Country, England
Posts: 318
Gender: Male
Member Number: 25328
Thanks: 597
Thanked 410 Times in 200 Posts
My Mood: Sad
Default Re: Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddha Bus View Post
Although there is no excuse for a judge to not know the origins of that phrase, it doesn't change the fact that this country was founded on that principle.

Still, she and every other judge should know that.
In all fairness, if that was the case, then the USA would have had universal franchise and would have abolished slavery at either the beginning or the end of the War of Independence.

But it was New Zealand who first had universal franchise, and I believe Denmark was the first to abolish the transatlantic slave trade.

In 1706, a precedent in Common Law was set that any "Negro Slave" who sets foot in England will automatically be free. "One may be a villain in England, but never a slave."
Wagen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Wagen For This Useful Post:
Buddha Bus (02-16-2014), harrison'samonster (02-15-2014)
Old 02-15-2014, 10:00 PM   #50
Atlanta Dan
Resigned
Supporter
 
Atlanta Dan's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,248
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 2,575
Thanked 8,242 Times in 3,620 Posts
Default Re: Kansas’ Anti-Gay Segregation Bill

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vis View Post
Dan, have you seen an argument that wasn't rejected in Windsor? Kennedy's rationale leads to only one outcome unless a new theory of a legitimate state interest is argued.
Maybe - this from the NYT on the Virginia decision

The decision chose just one of the plausible readings of Windsor, which contained doctrinal crosscurrents. Indeed, Judge Wright Allen quoted a long passage from Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion extolling the central role of states in defining marriage. That would seem to support allowing Virginia to decide whom it will let marry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us...in-states.html

In addition to the conservative wing, Justice Ginsburg is afraid of creating another Roe v. Wade situation where the Court potentially gets too far ahead of the public and blows up all state statutes on marriage, which is arguably why the Court resolved the companion case to Windsor on standing grounds and did not rule on whether the California proposition regarding same sex marriage was unconstitutional

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a leading champion of women’s rights, has often said the Supreme Court should have issued a narrower decision in 1973 in Roe v. Wade rather than announcing a broad constitutional right to abortion nationwide. State legislatures, she has said, were making progress on the issue.

Justice Ginsburg’s historical account is contested, but there is reason to think that her caution played a role in the court’s failure in June to say in Hollingsworth v. Perry whether the Constitution requires states to let gay and lesbian couples marry.

The justices continue to mull the crucial question of when to weigh in when society is on the move.

In a joint appearance last week, Justice Elena Kagan seemed to give Justice Ginsburg a nudge.

“She has been critical of certain cases, most notably Roe v. Wade, for having ruled too expansively and too quickly,” Justice Kagan said of Justice Ginsburg, who listened attentively. “But she has also recognized that when the time is right courts can play an important role in ratifying society’s progress.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/us...in-states.html

So where there is a will to get to or avoid a particular outcome there is a way - Roberts wanted to gut the Commerce Clause in his opinion upholding Obamacare but arguably did not want 5 GOP appointees dropping the hammer on highly partisan legislation and make the Court an issue in the 2012 campaign . So he came up with an imaginative theory regarding the mandate being a tax while at the same time ignoring precedent, such as USDOT telling the States they could not get federal highway $$$ unless they raised the drinking age from 18 to 21, in holding States had the option but were not compelled to enter into the Obamacare provisions of Medicaid as a condition of receiving other Medicaid dollars

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-1...obamacare.html

So I will be interested to see how the Circuit Court opinions shake out before being certain the rationale in opinions such as the one issued in Virginia this week are clearly going to prevail before the Supremes.. Based on how constitutional law was taught to me in law school I thought it was joke to argue Obamacare was not a legitimate exercise of federal authority under the Commerce Clause- guess again.
__________________
“For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” - H.L. Mencken
Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts