Judge Sotomayer's October 2001 speech ... the rest of the story

[rushmc 23]

Quote

thank you.

so, in your opinion, was the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education improper?

No, and I see where you are going.

I know rulings affect policy. that is different than setting it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BikerBabe 0]

no, i'm not going anywhere. let others imply what they wish from your answer. All I am doing is trying to understand your position.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[funjumper101 15]

And those thoughts show up in what documents?

Quotes with no attribution are worthless.
Take a note of how Marg post similar info. The quoted text is shown, along with the link to the source document.

They make a fine fantasy, but reality is FAR different. According to the precepts laid out, a political litmus test for nomination to judicail appointments is wrong. Yet all judges are nominated on the basis of their political beliefs. Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayer, etc, etc.

In other words, you believe in something that doesn't ever happen, and think that it should be applied anyway. Most illogical.

Your rant about the Iowa decision is laughable. The court decided that the the ban was unconstitutional. The decison also was correct in forcing the state to start treating those that had been victimized by the ban to start being treated equally RIGHT NOW, not at some undefined time in the future. Why would they NOT make that decision? That isn't activism. That is equal application of the law to all, even those that some people don't like or approve of.

They didn't leave time for folks like you to pressure the legislators to reinstate a ban on something that was found to be illegal. That was a damn good move on their part. As time passes and Iowa doesn't fall apart, the opposition to gay marriage will fade away, except for some extremist religious types.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

And those thoughts show up in what documents?

Quotes with no attribution are worthless.
Take a note of how Marg post similar info. The quoted text is shown, along with the link to the source document.

They make a fine fantasy, but reality is FAR different. According to the precepts laid out, a political litmus test for nomination to judicail appointments is wrong. Yet all judges are nominated on the basis of their political beliefs. Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayer, etc, etc.

In other words, you believe in something that doesn't ever happen, and think that it should be applied anyway. Most illogical.

Your rant about the Iowa decision is laughable. The court decided that the the ban was unconstitutional. The decison also was correct in forcing the state to start treating those that had been victimized by the ban to start being treated equally RIGHT NOW, not at some undefined time in the future. Why would they NOT make that decision? That isn't activism. That is equal application of the law to all, even those that some people don't like or approve of.

They didn't leave time for folks like you to pressure the legislators to reinstate a ban on something that was found to be illegal. That was a damn good move on their part. As time passes and Iowa doesn't fall apart, the opposition to gay marriage will fade away, except for some extremist religious types.

So, under which law, (and who created it) are those marriages being preformed?

Again, I am not arguing the decision (something your current emotional state will not let you do) I am speaking to the process and procedure.

The court can not set law. They did here. And it is not a power given them. But you want what you want so it is ok with you.

Emotion, not logic (to use your word)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

You mean when she suggests that jurists ought to selectively choose which of their own prejudices to impose upon their decisions?

She doesn't do that. That's the point. The rest of the story.

[BikerBabe 0]

so if there is not a law specifically allowing something, then that thing is illegal?

Is that truly what you are implying?

Stop to think about that if you are.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

so if there is not a law specifically allowing something, then that thing is illegal?

Is that truly what you are implying?

Stop to think about that if you are.

No, the state law said marrige was between and man and wormen. the statue granted the state the power to marry them. The court said they law was not constitutional. So what should happen next? Should the court have power to order the state to preform those marriages? If so, which law are they then deciding against?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

Here in Iowa the Iowa SC state the marriage law was not constitutional (I am not here to argue the merits of this) That is fine, that is what they do but, they (the Iowa SC) went a step further and said Iowa is to marry them

If the law was unconstitutional, then the choices would seem to be
a. refuse to marry anyone no matter the gender
b. marry everyone, no matter the gender

The Defense of Marriage act was how Iowa planned to avoid marrying people to the same gender. The equal protection clause in the Iowa constitution apparently means that everyone gets the same rights if they're not specifically removed. If the Defense of Marriage act wasn't necessary, why was it passed? And if it was, why would its reversal mean that the status quo wouldn't change?

The "problem" is that some people are more comfortable with the status quo, no matter what the status quo is, and others aren't.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[BikerBabe 0]

not sure that's what they did. they CAN order the state to stop PREVENTING those marriages from occurring. There is a huge difference.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[rushmc 23]

True

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Here in Iowa the Iowa SC state the marriage law was not constitutional (I am not here to argue the merits of this) That is fine, that is what they do but, they (the Iowa SC) went a step further and said Iowa is to marry them

If the law was unconstitutional, then the choices would seem to be
a. refuse to marry anyone no matter the gender
b. marry everyone, no matter the gender

The Defense of Marriage act was how Iowa planned to avoid marrying people to the same gender. The equal protection clause in the Iowa constitution apparently means that everyone gets the same rights if they're not specifically removed. If the Defense of Marriage act wasn't necessary, why was it passed? And if it was, why would its reversal mean that the status quo wouldn't change?

The "problem" is that some people are more comfortable with the status quo, no matter what the status quo is, and others aren't.

Wendy P.

Regardless Wendy, where is the statue that says it can be done?

This equal protection clause is being bastardized IMO too but that is another thread.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

not sure that's what they did. they CAN order the state to stop PREVENTING those marriages from occurring. There is a huge difference.

Isn't the state the authority that legally licenses the marriage?

If that's the case, then the state isn't preventing them, it's essentially creating them.


If the authority isn't the state (say, it's a municipality), then I can see how the state act is preventing the municipalities from doing something.


I'm not sure which of these is the case, though.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

Regardless Wendy, where is the statue that says it can be done?

The problem with reverting to the status quo if a law is overturned is the very fact of the law having been specifically judged. The cat is out of the bag -- that law no longer applies, so the behavior it was designed to control is not illegal. The fact that "polite people don't do that" is irrelevant.

It's why one should be very careful with new laws. What would you expect to happen with the Iowa DOMA law being overturned? People to just continue not marrying gays?

They went forward with opinion stuff (referring to Iowa's progressive judicial record such as women's suffrage & Dred Scott), but the upshot is that if the law is illegal, then the behavior that the law was designed to stop is legal.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Wendy, I understand your position but, there is currently no law that makes these marriage legal. Only a court order. Therefor, this court has written law. they have no power to do this.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BikerBabe 0]

Quote

Wendy, I understand your position but, there is currently no law that makes these marriage legal. Only a court order. Therefor, this court has written law. they have no power to do this.

what Wendy is saying, quite simply, is that there does not NEED to be a law that makes those marriages legal. They ARE legal by the simple fact that refusing to marry them is illegal.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Wendy, I understand your position but, there is currently no law that makes these marriage legal. Only a court order. Therefor, this court has written law. they have no power to do this.

what Wendy is saying, quite simply, is that there does not NEED to be a law that makes those marriages legal. They ARE legal by the simple fact that refusing to marry them is illegal.

I understand but, marriages are granted by statue in every state. That statue does not exist at this time in Iowa. So, the court has by default written a statue.

I did strike down a law they ruled to be unconstitutional. THAT is thier job. Setting a date to start allowing marriages is not.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,461]

The law is unconstitutional the instant it's struck down. What do you expect -- them to wait for a law to be passed making legal that which they just ruled is illegal to forbid?

The statute allows marriage. The state constitution equal protection clause makes it illegal to have a law saying that marriage can only apply to heterosexual marriages. So the only choices would be to have NO marriages, or have ALL marriages.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[BikerBabe 0]

Wendy, since marc is getting technical here, the only option available right now in Iowa is NO marriages at all, since the Iowa marriage statute was deemed unconstitutional, thus leaving a void in state law where marriage is concerned.

Currently there is NO LEGAL STATUTE in Iowa which grants marriages.

So according to Marc's reasoning, there can be no marriages granted in Iowa until the legislature writes a new law.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[wmw999 2,461]

I think that Marc would have been very happy with things returning to as they were. Unfortunately, that wasn't one of the options any more.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)