HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » DOMA just took a beating ...

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:30 PM

DOMA just took a beating at SCOTUS

Last edited Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:04 PM - Edit history (3)

__________________

tweeted by, Sahil Kapur ‏@sahilkapur 7m

DOMA just took a beating at SCOTUS. Four liberal justices & Kennedy highly skeptical it's constitutional.
Retweeted by Josh Marshall


update on Wednesday hearing from WaPo:

The Obama administration has said that it will not defend the law, known as DOMA, and lower courts have said it is unconstitutional to deny federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married in the states where they live while offering the same benefits to opposite-sex married couples. At the same time, however, the administration has said it will continue to enforce the law until the Supreme Court rules.

During Wednesday’s oral arguments, Justice Antonin Scalia remarked on that contradiction, saying it was a “new world” when the attorney general could decide a law is unconstitutional but still enforce it. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, considered a potential swing vote in the case, called that a “questionable practice.”

Technical questions dominated the first part of Wednesday’s oral arguments, with a court-appointed attorney arguing that a group of Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives has no standing to defend DOMA in court . . .

read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-the-second-day-supreme-court-considers-doma/2013/03/26/331bb5ae-966e-11e2-9e23-09dce87f75a1_story.html


2nd update:

____ Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, thought likely to be the deciding vote as the court held its second day of hearings on same-sex marriage, told the advocate defending the law that it did not really promote “uniformity” in federal law.

Kennedy acknowledged that there were 1,100 references to marriage in the federal code, and that the definition of who is married is “intertwined with daily life.” He questioned whether the federal government may impose its own view of marriage, which has “always thought to be” the domain of the state.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that if those couples don’t receive federal benefits such as tax advantages, Social Security benefits and other recognition, “what kind of marriage is it?’

She said it created two classes: real marriage and “skim-milk marriage.”

read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-the-second-day-supreme-court-considers-doma/2013/03/26/331bb5ae-966e-11e2-9e23-09dce87f75a1_story.html?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost


NYCLU ‏@nyclu 2h
PIC: LOOK at the panoramic scene outside #SCOTUS hearings in NYCLU #DOMA case. #united4marriage #time4marriage pic.twitter.com/md46xHzpxt
Retweeted by ACLU National




WaPo updates: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/27/supreme-court-hears-oral-arguments-on-doma-live-blog/#liveblog-entry-34003


Audio/Transcript - Wednesday, Supreme Court oral arguments on DOMA
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022574832

21 replies, 3531 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply DOMA just took a beating at SCOTUS (Original post)
bigtree Mar 2013 OP
uppityperson Mar 2013 #1
Cha Mar 2013 #6
alsame Mar 2013 #2
bigtree Mar 2013 #3
progressoid Mar 2013 #4
Volaris Mar 2013 #5
stevenleser Mar 2013 #10
Merlot Mar 2013 #16
davidpdx Mar 2013 #17
Cha Mar 2013 #7
TBF Mar 2013 #8
rurallib Mar 2013 #9
TBF Mar 2013 #11
Roland99 Mar 2013 #12
love_katz Mar 2013 #13
William769 Mar 2013 #14
blkmusclmachine Mar 2013 #15
rhett o rick Mar 2013 #18
rhett o rick Mar 2013 #19
bigtree Mar 2013 #20
rhett o rick Mar 2013 #21

Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:33 PM

1. This should not even be an issue. Chills from reading the OP headline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:02 PM

6. Yeah, I know.. but, it's the reality in

living in a country where the stupid hate is such a money maker.

So here we are having to fight it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:48 PM

2. DOMA is a disgrace. It should take a beating. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alsame (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:57 PM

3. we'll see if this is just chatter from the bench

. . . or, if something substantial is included in the ruling which will undo the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 01:46 PM

4. OMG

I think I agree with scalia.

it was a “new world” when the attorney general could decide a law is unconstitutional but still enforce it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 02:33 PM

5. isn't it sacary when that happens?

and that Justice Scalia is an asshole, does NOT mean he's an idiot also. I would NEVER call him stupid, and THAT's why I consider him dangerous heh.

On edit: her's the link for the Oral Argument, for those who haven't heard it yet.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-307

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:40 PM

10. It falls into that category where its OK when our guy does it for the right reasons. But...

I can see a future Repug President not upholding a law that is important to us because they disagree with it and all of us going absolutely berserk with anger about it.

I'll take it in this case and to hell with the consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 11:17 PM

16. It makes sense that an AG can't just "decide" that a law is unconstitutional

Laws aren't meant to be "decided" upon. We had 8 years of a "decider" and I'm glad that is over. Yes, it may be unconstitutional but the constitution is open to some VERY different interpretations...just ask scalia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 03:09 AM

17. Agreeing with Scalia make me want to throw up

and then make me want to take a shower because I feel dirty. I really hate him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:06 PM

7. Thank you for all this info, bigtree

Fingers crossed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:32 PM

8. Good -

I wasn't sure they were understanding the issue yesterday. Maybe Roberts decided to engage his brain today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 03:36 PM

9. don't count your victories until your opponent can't get up

I don't trust these fuckers.
4 of them are bought and paid for mercenaries, so they only need one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rurallib (Reply #9)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 04:56 PM

11. That is a very good point.

I still haven't gotten over the fuckers that killed the ERA 30 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 05:19 PM

12. 14th Amendment. Section 1. 'nuff said.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 07:11 PM

13. DOMA needs to be trampled flat, face first in the mud...

to, hopefully, never rise again.

The whole concept is abhorrent. Why should fundy wingnuts be allowed to force the obedience to their religious beliefs onto the lives and bodies of others?

The answer is obvious: there is NO WAY they should be allowed to coerce others to goose step to their beliefs.

As always, the whole issue is about the right of the wingnuts to coerce the rest of us into living our lives in accordance with the tenants of their religion, irregardless of what we might believe. It is completely disgusting, and as anti-American as it is possible to get, at least as far as the ideals set out in the Constitution are concerned. (And, I am all too aware of our history, where the dominant religious groups in this country have and continue to attempt to dictate to everyone else.).

The efforts of the wingnuts to dictate to the rest of us deserve to go down to permanent defeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 07:34 PM

14. Recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Wed Mar 27, 2013, 10:55 PM

15. But how will the Judges vote?

Must wait for their rendering ..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:08 AM

18. Is there someone in DU keeping up to date re the status of the SCOTUS?

If not, any recommendations for a site that is keeping up to date?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Original post)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 11:33 AM

19. IMHO the Justices are way off line on this.

"Justice Alito looked for “data” on this “institution which is newer than cell phones.” Same-sex marriage, he said, might turn out to a “good thing”, or “not”, as Proposition 8 supporters “apparently believe.” Justice Scalia said that there is no “scientific answer” to the decisive “harm” question at this time.” Justice Sotomayor asked the Solicitor General: why not “let[] the States experiment” for a few more years, to let society “figure out its direction.”" (from http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/03/commentary-over-the-cliff/#more-161942)

They are saying that same sex marriage is a new thing. The only thing new is that it recently has become legal in some states. But it's been going on for decades. What data is needed? That the world wont end as we know it? Same sex couples have been doing everything that married couples do for decades except enjoy the same benefits. Do the Justices think that if we give same sex couples the same benefits we give opposite sex married couples, that that some how could give a negative outcome? I am totally lost.

Why does the government currently give "married" couples special benefits? Is the intent to encourage marriage? If so, why? If it's because married couples provide stability to society, then the genders shouldnt matter.

Seems to me that there are two issues. One does allowing same sex marriages violate the Constitution? Two, does the Constitution prohibit discrimination based on gender for receiving benefits? I know I am trying to make this too easy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 12:02 PM

20. Justice Sotomayor was asking on behalf of the silent conservatives on the court

. . . who regularly leave their most controversial arguments to themselves, at least until they rule. I think she was soliciting a rebuttal to that argument; not expressing some belief she holds about 'experimenting for a few years.'

Agree that giving any hetero couple benefits for being married opens the door for an assumption of rights across the board for gays, lesbians and others . . . so, either include ALL couples or eliminate the benefits entirely.

There would be a bit of a problem in defining all 'benefits' afforded to married couples as attempts to preserve the institution of marriage and such. Many are things like survivor benefits and the like. But, I understand your reasoning, I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigtree (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 28, 2013, 01:58 PM

21. Thanks for trying to understand. I am not sure of my reasoning.

Just trying to talk it out.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread