So gay!!!

[One Brow]

You think that question still requires an answer, Eric?

I don't particularly care if you make baseless claims or not. It only requires an answer if you care to justify your claim.

How about his fundamental right to vote, which by implication includes the right to have his vote counted and NOT have it arbitrarily undermined by judges with no constitutional authority to do so?

The Prop 8 supporters were able to vote, their votes were counted, and it was not arbitrarily undermined by a judge lacking Constitutional authority. So, you missed listing any rights of which they were deprived.

I guess it's already been made quite apparent that gay advocates can't even begin to conceive of the notion that anyone else may also have rights, but such attitudes still kinda amaze me, somehow.

I think asking for the rights of which they have been deprived clearly relies on teh assumption they have rights.

All this judge had to do, and all he should have done, ...

You must think it's a shame Walker didn't have your expertise in Constitutional law.

 

[Hopper]

You must think it's a shame Walker didn't have your expertise in Constitutional law.

In a case like this, no expertise is required. Simple literacy is sufficient. I have posted some (a mere fraction) of the controlling precedents myself, directly or indirectly, in this thread. This TRIAL judge simply does NOT have the discretion to ignore and violate prior supreme court holdings. Only the supreme court itself has the authority to do that. Anyone who ever took a 7th grade civics class knows that. Don't take no expert.

You seem to be the one claiming expertise which far superior to that of the supreme court, eh, Eric? You keep INSISTING that the constitutional is being violated, contrary to what the supreme court has said.

 

[One Brow]

In a case like this, no expertise is required. Simple literacy is sufficient.

You're kidding yourself if you think simple literacy is enough to truly understand the intracacies of legal opinions (or for that matter, the specialized workproduct of any field where post-graduate work is essential to competence).

You seem to be the one claiming expertise which far superior to that of the supreme court, eh, Eric?

To my knowledge, the current Supreme court has not yet ruled on this.

You keep INSISTING that the constitutional is being violated, contrary to what the supreme court has said.

You could have made the same arguments about male sexual relations 8 years ago. Then came Lawrence vs. Texas, and it turned out the constitution was being violated, but SCOTUS had not previously realized it.

 

[Hopper]

You're kidding yourself if you think simple literacy is enough to truly understand the intracacies of legal opinions (or for that matter, the specialized workproduct of any field where post-graduate work is essential to competence).

I didn't say you didn't need expertise to understand all "intricacies"

To my knowledge, the current Supreme court has not yet ruled on this.

Then I will quickly remind you that a Minnesota Court ruled that a gay couple had no right to a marriage license. They appealed, claiming their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free association, etc. were being violated. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, who had a duty to rule on the issue. The court summarily dismissed it, deeming the issue not even worthy of an oral hearing, stating that no substantial federal issues were being raised. Judge Walker REFUSED to even acknowledge the existence of this precedent (and many others).

You could have made the same arguments about male sexual relations 8 years ago. Then came Lawrence vs. Texas, and it turned out the constitution was being violated, but SCOTUS had not previously realized it.

Yes, I could have. And they would have been just as valid and accurate then, too. A TRIAL court does NOT have the right to ignore supreme court rulings on a subject. The supreme court can reverse itself, but trial courts can't "reverse" them.

Of course no inferior federal court ever made such an attempt in Lawrence v. Texas. And that ruling made it clear that is was NOT intended to provide support for gay marriage. Kennedy limited the unconstitutionality of the sodomy law to the narrow set of consensual adult sexual conduct, enumerating areas where sodomy laws could potentially remain in effect, saying:

"The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."

The way I read this reference to "public conduct" a state could definitely make it illegal for a homo to hang around the bus station restroom proposing sodomistic activity to every guy who comes in. The ruling only protects "personal and private consensual acts between adults."

After having read the case carefully, I cannot find anywhere that it says: "If One Brow thinks a provision of the California constititution is forbidden by the U.S. constitution, then the duty of all citizens to adhere to that constitution should be immediately suspended."

 

[Boondocksaint27]

Hate to interrupt the two-person back-and-forth that's going on here...but I just saw this video, thought it was pretty funny, and decided to share it -
Prop 8, the Musical.


[video]https://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones

You may continue

 

[One Brow]

I didn't say you didn't need expertise to understand all "intricacies"

Of course not. You just pontificate on the decision as if you really understand the issues, while admitting you have no training in the field.

Then I will quickly remind you that a Minnesota Court ruled that a gay couple had no right to a marriage license. They appealed, claiming their constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, free association, etc. were being violated. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, who had a duty to rule on the issue. The court summarily dismissed it, deeming the issue not even worthy of an oral hearing, stating that no substantial federal issues were being raised. Judge Walker REFUSED to even acknowledge the existence of this precedent (and many others).

Some decisions have use Baker v. Nelson as a controlling precedent, some have not. While I'm sure the conservative sources you've been unanimous on this point, that doesn't mean they are correct. Your pretense that you know with certainly that this is a controlling precedent is the same sort of sophistry you regularly condemn.

Of course no inferior federal court ever made such an attempt in Lawrence v. Texas.

You mean, because it went straight from state court to the Supreme Court, presumably.

And that ruling made it clear that is was NOT intended to provide support for gay marriage.

Don't recall claiming otherwise. I just noted it to make the point that the Court does reverse itself relatively quickly, from time to time. The precedent Lawrence vs. Texas overruled was decided after Baker vs. Nelson.

So, any luck on coming up with the right denied to the supporters of Prop 8?

Any luck using my ideological reasons to figure out who I would say is a denialist?

I didn't think so.

 

[Hopper]

Eric, did you even read any part of the motion for stay I linked? Let me guess, eh? No, you don't read trash, right?

Do you even pay the slightest bit of attention you anything posted in this thread that you don't agree with? In order to get an emergency stay, the prop 8 guys had to make a STRONG showing that they were likely to prevail on appeal. They got their stay.

This is notwithstanding the fact that good ole Vaughnie-boy had denied a stay, on the ground that they were "unlikely" to win on appeal, and tried to begin denying California voters their constitutional rights the day the stay was granted by the appellate court. He didn't even have the decency to let his own state's constitution stand until an appellate ruling was made.

After citing the two cases most DIRECTLY controlling Walker (one by the Supreme Court and one by the 9th circuit itself) BOTH of which I have quoted here already, and BOTH of which Walker totally IGNORED, the brief goes on to say:

"The district court’s decision is also contrary to the overwhelming weight of judicial authority addressing the validity of the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage under the Federal Constitution, including decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, two State courts of final resort, two intermediate State courts within this Circuit in decisions that were denied review by the States’ supreme courts, and virtually every other court to address the issue. The sheer weight of authority opposed to the district court’s decision further confirms that that decision will likely be reversed on appeal."

About 10 cases are then cited, in addition to the two mentioned, including the Bruning case, previously discussed in this thread. You may recall (but probably don't) that Bruning had a virtually identical set of circumstances as this case; homosexuals were trying (unsucessfullly) to overturn a voter initiative that prohibited gay marriage in Nebraska.

The stay was granted, because a strong showing had been made that the prop 8 proponents would prevail on appeal.

You will no doubt just continue to insist that Walker, a trial judge, had the DUTY to ignore these cases and IMMEDIATELY prevent all callfornia officials from honoring the constitution, but that the appellate court is just too stupid to see it the right (i.e. your) way. Then again, they aren't near the legal expert that YOU are, because you KNOW the voters had NO RIGHT to the benefits of the issue they voted on, eh?

 

[Hopper]

Some decisions have use Baker v. Nelson as a controlling precedent, some have not.

Which ones have not?

The precedent Lawrence vs. Texas overruled was decided after Baker vs. Nelson.

Yeah, and Baker was decided only about 5 years after Loving, the so-called "right to marriage" case, and the plaintiff's in Baker relied heavily on it (Loving). They still lost at every level, up to, and including, the Supreme Court level. The Supreme Court was so unimpressed by the claim that Loving gave homo's rights that it didn't even care to be briefed on the topic. It would all just be a waste of their time since "no substantial federal questions" had been raised by that argument (that Loving gave homos a right to marriage, that is).

So, any luck on coming up with the right denied to the supporters of Prop 8?

Any luck using my ideological reasons to figure out who I would say is a denialist?

I didn't think so.

When you still can't fathom what rights prop 8 people could possibly have, I'd have to say that you are the "denialist," eh, Eric?

 

[Hopper]

I now see that Judge Walker has already been reprimanded by the U.S. Supreme Court for attempting to violate rules in this case, eh? Seems that, on the eve of trial, Walker amended (on a local basis) rules which prohibit public televising of federal court proceedings because he wanted his mug broadcast all over the country while presiding over his show trial.

The Supreme Court said this was illegal and was forced to step in and halt the intended spectacle. they were NOT happy about it:

"...our review is confined to a narrow legal issue: whether the District Court’s amendment of its local rules to broadcast this trial complied with federal law. We conclude that it likely did not and that applicants have demonstrated that irreparable harm would likely result from the District Court’s actions.

The District Court [i.e. Vaughn Walker] attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09A648.pdf

Another drama queen dream crushed, eh?

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

I now see that Judge Walker has already been reprimanded by the U.S. Supreme Court for attempting to violate rules in this case, eh? Seems that, on the eve of trial, Walker amended (on a local basis) rules which prohibit public televising of federal court proceedings because he wanted his mug broadcast all over the country while presiding over his show trial.

The Supreme Court said this was illegal and was forced to step in and halt the intended spectacle. they were NOT happy about it:

"...our review is confined to a narrow legal issue: whether the District Court’s amendment of its local rules to broadcast this trial complied with federal law. We conclude that it likely did not and that applicants have demonstrated that irreparable harm would likely result from the District Court’s actions.

The District Court [i.e. Vaughn Walker] attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09A648.pdf

Another drama queen dream crushed, eh?

Right, I agree with you to some extent that Walker was the one who crushed the dreams of millions when he went to the District Court and made the party regulars vote for taxcuts. But we would probably both agree that this solidly proves wrong every post you've made in this thread:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09sdfsA648.pdf

You might have to find how exactly it does so, but I have a feeling with your analytical skills you'll be able to see what I'm saying. Judge Walker should be set free, I don't see why we're pigeon holing his prospects here.

 

[Craig K. Manscill]

Which ones have not?

Quite a few actually, namely Tucker Johnson and Elijah Wood. You could argue that they HAVE but I think that would be a lolly in semantics.

Yeah, and Baker was decided only about 5 years after Loving, the so-called "right to marriage" case, and the plaintiff's in Baker relied heavily on it (Loving). They still lost at every level, up to, and including, the Supreme Court level. The Supreme Court was so unimpressed by the claim that Loving gave homo's rights that it didn't even care to be briefed on the topic. It would all just be a waste of their time since "no substantial federal questions" had been raised by that argument (that Loving gave homos a right to marriage, that is).

Granted, Loving did give Baker a chance to second guess the decision, and I figure he just didn't give it enough time. But as long as Loving's around, there won't be any gay marriage happening in the state of Colorado. It just won't. So we'll see this settled in the Supreme Court under the JCAA.

When you still can't fathom what rights prop 8 people could possibly have, I'd have to say that you are the "denialist," eh, Craig?

Look, I've told you several times what their rights are. But every time you choose to ignore my points. Here's a question in your direction: how many gay rallies have resulted in lower taxes or benign tumors in medical courts?

 

[One Brow]

Eric, did you even read any part of the motion for stay I linked?

No. Did the motion become the definitive opinion on this case for some reason?

Let me guess, eh? No, you don't read trash, right?

I have no way of knowing that. I have heard that the attorneys for the defense were no particularly competent, but I can't personally vouch for that, and I don't know if they were involved in drafting the motion for a stay.

Do you even pay the slightest bit of attention you anything posted in this thread that you don't agree with? In order to get an emergency stay, the prop 8 guys had to make a STRONG showing that they were likely to prevail on appeal. They got their stay.

I read that was one of the four criteria. I'm not sure that strong even means 50-50 chance here, but just a substantial likelihood. I don't doubt there is a substantial likelihood.

He didn't even have the decency ...

Terminology like this makes it clear there is a lot of emotion in your analysis.

After citing the two cases most DIRECTLY controlling Walker ...

I'm sure this is a claim in the brief. The court will actually decide if they are controlling or not. Using capital letters won't change that.

You will no doubt just continue to insist that Walker, a trial judge, ...

I've insisted on very little about this trial. You are doing all the insisting, and quite humorously.

... because you KNOW the voters had NO RIGHT to the benefits of the issue they voted on, eh?

What benefit, precisely, did the voters for Proposition 8 receive?

Which ones have not?

I recall a case up in Washington where to women tried to file jointly for bankruptcy.

Yeah, and Baker was decided only about 5 years after Loving, ...

So, it's quite possible SCOTUS is ready to recognize that it's time to overturn Baker.

So, any luck on coming up with the right denied to the supporters of Prop 8?

Any luck using my ideological reasons to figure out who I would say is a denialist?

I didn't think so.

When you still can't fathom what rights prop 8 people could possibly have, I'd have to say that you are the "denialist," eh, Eric?

I think they the exact same rights as the opposers of Proposition 8: to marry the consenting adult of their choice. I think they lack the same right as the opposers of Proposiiton 8: the right to choose the consenting adult someone else can marry. Are you suggesting that Prop 8 supporters really do have the right to say who someone can marry? If not, what is the right they are being denied?

We'll catch up on the other question later.

Another drama queen dream crushed, eh?

I have no doubt that forcing the opponents of gay marriage to publically defend their opinions under cross-examination is indeed a "drama queen dream".