Saturday, June 29, 2013

The Decision That Almost Was. . . ..some comments from RICHARD. . .


Some thoughts about today’s Supreme Court opinions which I jotted down for a friend.


OK, I’ve calmed down a bit after I smacked Tony Scalia a few times and told him to stop being such a wise ass.

Obviously I am thrilled by the decision of the court to find DOMA unconstitutional, although I was a bit disappointed that the decision was only 5-4.  More of that in a minute.

The decision in Windsor (the DOMA case) effectively gave same sex couples in the 12 states (soon to be 13 with the addition of CA) and DC full access to the 1100 or so federal provisions which rely on the definition of marriage.  SSA, DOD and civil service survivors’ benefits; joint filing of taxes (?); and a myriad of others.  With the decision in Hollingsworth (the Prop 8 case) some 30 % of the country now lives in states where same sex marriage is legal. 

Hollingsworth is a mixed bag.  While the ultimate outcome of the case was to overturn Prop 8 and make same sex marriage legal again in CA, a close reading of the dissent in that case shows us the decision which might have been.
Both cases were decided on 5-4 votes; but it’s a comparison of who was on which side in each case that is fascinating and possibly shows us the future.




Richard, It sure is strange to have
2 Catholics on the Court that don't
agree. LOL It so good to see all the rhetoric, and think Justin could do a much better Job. wow.
With your Dad being being a lawyer, maybe he could get on that
court and make better decisions than have been made in the past.
Right now, we just want Justin to heal to the nth degree.

JustinO'Shea said...

By gosh, JoeRad, you ascribe to me abilities, interests which aren't eve there. LOL
Oh yeah I could play at being a big-mouthed lawyer. . ho ho ho. . .no offence, J..none!.. . but it would take long before peeps read right thru me. . .besides I am now in a profession where I belong and want to be. . we each have our proper gifts. . some this way and some another. . ;-)
I told Dad about your comment how his being a lawyer I could maybe get in on that. . Dad's reply: Sonny Boy, not on your life! You'd have to earn that yourself. And one O'Shea is quite enough. . stick to your chosen field. . Sides, with you, the Supremes'd be like a tree full of monkeys! ho ho ho

jimm said...

Dr J,

Well, first I want to say that I am glad you are recovering.

I don't really understand your discussion with JoeRad.

Nor do I understand the SCOTUS's rulings. But I do know that I will never fit in, so it doesn't really matter. Too little, too late.

But, in the end, I am happy for the youngsters.


Lord de Me Justin, the Humor runs
in your Irish Clan. You are one
Lucky Person. LOL

J said...

My problem with the Hollingsworth decision (Prop 8)has nothing to do with the ruling, which is based entirely on standing to sue, and everything to do with the tactic it effectively enshrines: If a governor and a state attorney general decide they don't like a law passed by the legislature or the people by referendum, they can effectively nullify it by not providing it a defense in the courts. This is a dangerous course of action where officials are charged with defending the laws of their state. What if the shoe was on the other foot? Suppose the executives opposed a law adopted by the legislature legalizing same sex marriage and it was challenged in court? Would we like it if the people left to defend the suit had no standing?

Coop said...

There's a faction of people who are miffed that the supreme court is taking it upon itself to undo what was done by legislation. DOMA was passed by congress therefore congress should be the one to kill it.

Am I mourning DOMA? Hells bells, NO.
But I sort of wish Obama et. al. had the courage to try and repeal the thing.

(Can't you tell I have stuff on the back burner in my brain that I chew on now and then).