I just teared up on the train when I got the alert.
Eff you Scalia and Roberts. rjamz, I confess that as much as I disagree with Scalia on most everything, I love reading his opinions. I can't wait to nerd out over this!
Emerson Kate, born 38w5d on 4/6/12 at 6:02 p.m., 5 lbs 13 oz and 18 3/4 inches. Lucas Matthew, born 39w5d on 4/11/14 at 8:20 a.m., 7 lbs 4 oz and 20 inches.
RAGE. They did not rule on sec 2 of DOMA (where States can refuse to recognize same sec marriages preformed in other States) because it was not challenged in the case they were reviewing.
RAGE RAGE RAGE RAGE
Maybe I should actually read the whole thing before I rage......
I just teared up on the train when I got the alert.
Eff you Scalia and Roberts. rjamz, I confess that as much as I disagree with Scalia on most everything, I love reading his opinions. I can't wait to nerd out over this!
I just teared up on the train when I got the alert.
Eff you Scalia and Roberts. rjamz, I confess that as much as I disagree with Scalia on most everything, I love reading his opinions. I can't wait to nerd out over this!
Is it bad that I hope these 2 men die soon?
Can we add Thomas to the list?
FFWC: I secretly love Scalia. I heard him lecture a few times in law school, and he is really fascinating in person. My crazy liberal Legislation professor promised us on the first day of class that we would respect Scalia by the end of the semester, and he was right.
I just teared up on the train when I got the alert.
Eff you Scalia and Roberts. rjamz, I confess that as much as I disagree with Scalia on most everything, I love reading his opinions. I can't wait to nerd out over this!
FFWC: I secretly love Scalia. I heard him lecture a few times in law school, and he is really fascinating in person. My crazy liberal Legislation professor promised us on the first day of class that we would respect Scalia by the end of the semester, and he was right.
Oh, I totally respect him. Roberts too. Roberts is a brilliant legal mind, I just wish he would use it for good, not evil
FFWC: I secretly love Scalia. I heard him lecture a few times in law school, and he is really fascinating in person. My crazy liberal Legislation professor promised us on the first day of class that we would respect Scalia by the end of the semester, and he was right.
Yes, he is on my list also. I am just so ideologically different than those men. Reading their decisions always blows my mind.
What do no standing on prop 8 mean? I am the furthest thing from a lawyer
It means they won't rule on it. Since DOMA is unconstitutional, it's for the states to decide. Prop 8 is a state issue and therefore the parties have no standing to bring the case to the Supreme Court
What do no standing on prop 8 mean? I am the furthest thing from a lawyer
It basically means that they don't have the right to decide on the matter. Like if Rjamz wanted to sue me for drinking all of her wine, she could only sue me in NY because we both live here and the act (wine drinking) happened here. A court in Texas wouldn't have standing because it has no connection to us.
Guys, the full impact of this just hit me and I'm crying big ugly happy tears. YAY! When push came to shove, the Supreme Court did what was right and this will hopefully pave the way for social progress in more states.
Hooray for the 5th Amendment. It's my favorite amendment (well that and the 14th)
What do no standing on prop 8 mean? I am the furthest thing from a lawyer
It basically means that they don't have the right to decide on the matter. Like if Rjamz wanted to sue me for drinking all of her wine, she could only sue me in NY because we both live here and the act (wine drinking) happened here. A court in Texas wouldn't have standing because it has no connection to us.
Here's a Plain English take on United States v. Windsor, the DOMA case: The federal Defense of Marriage Act defines "marriage," for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs, as a union between a man and a woman only. Today the Court ruled, by a vote of five to four, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, that the law is unconstitutional. The Court explained that the states have long had the responsibility of regulating and defining marriage, and some states have opted to allow same-sex couples to marry to give them the protection and dignity associated with marriage. By denying recognition to same-sex couples who are legally married, federal law discriminates against them to express disapproval of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. This decision means that same-sex couples who are legally married must now be treated the same under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.
Here's a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.