DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Even with Three Trump-Appointed Justices on the Bench, SCOTUS Declines to Roll Back Marriage Equality

Even with Three Trump-Appointed Justices on the Bench, SCOTUS Declines to Roll Back Marriage Equality

The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari Monday in a case that threatened to chip away at marriage equality. The Court’s denial will disallow Indiana’s effort to discriminate against same-sex couples, and will continue to preserve the meaning of Obergefell v. Hodges.

Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill (R) took the position in Box v. Henderson that same-sex spouses should not have the same rights to be listed on state-issued birth certificates as opposite-sex spouses. The case arose as the result of several lesbian couples who conceived via artificial insemination; Indiana refused to list birth mothers’ wives on their children’s official birth certificates, but regularly listed birth mothers’ husbands on birth certificates without additional requirement.

The same issue had been raised in response to Arkansas’ identical practice in Pavan v. Smith—a 2017 Supreme Court case in which the Court also sided with the same-sex parents. A few months after Pavan, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments in Box v. Henderson. However, the Seventh Circuit waited nearly three years–in time for SCOTUS to include two Trump-appointees—before handing down a unanimous ruling in favor of the same-sex parents in Box v. Henderson.

By the time Indiana appealed its loss at the Seventh Circuit, SCOTUS would include Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and many court-watchers wondered whether the change to the bench would result in the Court’s eroding its landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges to allow the discrimination Indiana sought to conduct.

The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Box v. Henderson means the Seventh Circuit’s decision stands. Advocates for LGBTQ+ rights have praised the Court’s denial not only for its practical implications, but also for its signal that the Court will uphold the Obergefell precedent.





https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/ev...riage-equality/

Love wins.

As I said before and after they were elected. They are not puppets. I still have no idea why some folks think they are.

trump and his supporters including Moscow Mitch think they are puppets. It shows in their efforts to suppress the will of the people.

Trump thinks everybody is his puppet.

Interesting point and one I am glad you brought up.

I like to see some alignment on the court.

We see judges deemed on the right splitting ranks and voting with their left leaning colleague's several times. I would hope to see some on the left do so from time to time as well.

The court always rendering judgement along political lines isn't good. Law and rights aren't defined by political affiliation.

For heavens sake they are bound to protecting our constitution not a friggin political party. They aren’t leaning right or left. The are doing their job. Protecting our constitutional rights bound by the laws of the land.

Right. The problem is we don't view the Constitution in the same ways far too often

You are correct. One side views it like every word is a biblical verse open to haphazard interpretations depending on the current partisan bias at any given moment. The other side defends it like it was written by perfect men and irrefutable in every way.

If you want to figure out which side you are on, look and see if your man is in the Oval. If so, you're the former. If not, you're the latter. I honestly think that if we ever get back to bipartisan compromise and peaceful dialog, we should order the whole thing translated by the court into modern day direct language and law. Leaving the most vague areas off the law books just means it has to be reinterpreted all the time.

But that’s not a problem. You view it as a problem because federal laws protected by the U.S. constitution don’t always match up with your ideals or agenda. It’s a constant compromise in our democracy. Please find some bro. You’ll feel better about this loss.

That's true. Like allowing large church services be conducted without masks or social distancing. Some call that a matter of religious freedom. I call that using religion as an excuse to spread a deadly virus to others in your family and community. I'm a firm believer in individual and religious freedoms. However, when you use something you call freedom to endanger, infect and risk the life of other people, that's where I draw the line.

My feelings are very similar to yours Pit.

I believe that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights or safety of anyone else.

Gay marriage? Why not? Who does it hurt?

Own a gun? Absolutely!

Take that gun into a crowded area and fire it? Nope. you are putting other people's life and health at risk.

Wear a mask? I would be all for people be allowed to make their own decision if they were the only ones affected. If it risks their lives that is their choice. But when your actions put someone else's life at risk then that choice goes away.

You don't have to wear a mask. Just don't go where there are other people.

The point though, is the two year old stomping fit the left threw for each and every one that was nominated.. not a single person on the left said, "It's ok, relax, they will just do their job." Nope, to listen to them we were going straight back to 1832... the fear mongering was strong with the left.

But now that they ruled the way you wanted them to..... this time.... it's all good and gets a ROTFLMAO emoji... cool.

However I agree with Peen... it's not that uncommon for one of the republican appointed justices to side with the democrat appointed justices when the court appears somewhat evenly divided on a case.. but it rarely happens the other way.

I would be curious to see if Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsburg (when she was alive) ever dissented from each other, and if so, how often.

It's interesting to me because the theory that the Constitution is a leaving, breathing doctrine, which they all espouse(d), would theoretically open them up to varying interpretations, which makes it more odd that they almost always agree (in theory).

On the other hand, the originalist judges believe the Constitution is pretty much a dead document, aside from amendments. This should promote more uniformity. However, it's not that they necessarily disagree with each other, as much as they disagree with the conservative political branches, because "the constitution says what it says." I remember when Scalia came to our law school to speak, he talked about the flag burning case. He said something along the lines of "If it were up to me, then sure, I'd throw that anarchistic hippie in jail...BUT it's not up to me."

-------------------

Edit - as an aside, it was always readily apparent to me that the Supreme Court was just at a whole different level of intelligence and savvy than the other branches. Speaking of Scalia made me think of when he came to our law school to answer questions. Our professors and some of the local attorneys were very left-leaning, and came "locked and loaded." He pretty much dismantled them in a manner that almost made me cringe for them. None of the sidestepping, ducking and dodging you see from Congressional or Presidential candidates. I get that removing politics from the equation changes things, but it was still shocking.

That's not to make it a left or right thing either, just that it was the only thing I have witnessed in person. I'm sure someone like Ginsburg has or could have done the very same thing in front of a crowd of opposite minded people.

It always makes me wish they could rebut the shade that they take from the other branches. Both Trump and Obama criticized Roberts at time. I wish he could have taken up an opposite podium and responded.

Has nothing to do with them ruling "the way we wanted them to", and more about them doing the right thing BASED ON LAW AND PRECEDENT! And it's BS for you to laugh at that considering who was President.

Bottom line is DC's point sticks. You all were worried about the justices he appointed.......and, they did what was right under the law.

Let's see what they think of the law when religious beliefs enter into it.

So, you can't even admit the SCOTUS did the right thing? What about what about what about.

You, sir, are the reason reasonable conversation can't be had on here.

By the way, I'm going on vacation soon. I suppose that means I'm leaving the country for good?

This time. NOBODY likes Trump, so they weren't going to risk being tossed from the bench to perpetrate a coup for him. That doesn't mean they will do what is right on abortion, immigration, etc. But don't worry, if Joe doesn't balance the court by stacking it, then AOC will in 2024.

Nobody said anyone was "leaving the country for good". That would be a lie if that's your claim arch. Typical. You sir are the reason nobody bothers taking you seriously.

So, the justices did what was right. Like Trump or not, they did what was right under the law.

Tell me more about tossing a life long justice from the bench - how does that happen? I don't believe it ever has, do you have examples? Or, as our friend from Alaska would say "show me receipts". Don't have any?

The supreme court, despite what all you haters said, followed the law. I know you can't handle that.

Hey, how about telling us how much the country will improve under biden? Got anything there? Other than bowing down to china........how is Biden going to improve the country?

Your boy won.........quit attacking the past president and tell us how your boy will improve the country. Higher taxes? Bowing down to China and the stealing of intellectual property (I know thats a big word for you, and you probably don't understand it in terms of world affairs, but )

I suspect Republicans will become the enlightened fiscally responsible party the moment Biden takes office.

Biggest lie of all is that Republicans are fiscally responsible, they just like spending our money on their priorities.

https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/about-federal-judges



https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

#receipts

Lower level lifetime judges have been impeached and removed. But it would be easier to just add more seats to the SCOTUS. That can be done by EO, and it would be sweet sweet payback for Garland.

Let me translate that for you. You are afraid they WILL do the right thing when it comes to abortions.

You won't find me saying that. (your first paragraph).

There are NO fiscally responsible people in congress. Why? Because as a congress person, you have power, and can make millions - not from your salary - and they all want to stay in congress so they can make more and more money.

Staying in congress requires you somehow buy votes. How? By spending tax money that isn't even there to begin with, and telling your constituents "look how much money I brought back to you." And the ignorant vote for them again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The debt of the country doesn't matter to them. Votes, and staying in office matters.

No, you won't find me saying ANY politician is fiscally responsible unless and until I start seeing them CUT spending, in a real manner, and getting the debt paid down. Let me know when that happens.

Wife and I just had a similar conversation. Our house is almost paid for. She said what will we do then? We have to buy something, or we'll get killed on taxes. She wants to buy a lake house - so we can save on taxes, cause she knows people that said they only bought a lake house, or only put in a pool, etc - so they wouldn't have to pay as much in taxes.

What?

You don't go spend $300,000 on a lake house, or even $100,000 to be off the lake - that you don't have, in order to be able to deduct the interest from your income. If you do - you borrowed (or spent) say $100,000 which you'll need to repay.

That's spending $100,000 to perhaps $4000 deducted from your taxable income for 15 years (say, as the balance goes down - "saving" $40,000) You still have a net loss, add in insurance, property tax, of course a boat, and a jet ski, and insurance on them, electric on and on.

You don't spend that money to 'save' on taxes. Pay your tax bill, keep the rest.

I know a fellow who's tax accountant kept telling him "you need to buy a new truck, or you'll owe in taxes" Next year "You need to buy a new trailer, or you'll owe taxes."

Dude paid very little in taxes - dude isn't in the trucking business anymore because he couldn't make payments on all the stuff his tax accountant told him to buy.

Second properties are not eligible for interest deductions.

The tax argument is a weak one, depending on your bracket, you still are keeping 60-65 percent of your earnings.

Toss it into a 401k or invest in something with a return.

When it comes to abortion, I don't think the government has any right to say what anyone does with their own body..

So for me, it's a non starter.

I also believe that if religious organization want to have a say in public policy, they should lose their tax exempt status.

Joel Osteen will shoot himself over that one. So will most of the other evangelical leaders.

Fixed it.

Not sure how 2nd homes work but I never understood the reasoning behind the tax benefits of a home mortgage. Never made sense because you are deducting money that you already paid. Seemed like you were just moving columns.

Then I asked my financial adviser about it and he said that the benefit of a mortgage is that for most people that is what allows them to itemize their deduction and without it they wouldn't be able to itemize.

Try walking down the street naked in front of the cops, or drop some acid in front of the cops and see if they agree with you Try enjoying some Artificial trans fats, or avoiding a ticket for not wearing your seat belt.

Thanks. I really didn't expect most in this forum to understand the point being made.

Like all things there are 2 sides to the coin.

You are acting like (posting like) McConnell and the GOP did everything in their power to prevent Obama appointing a very centrist Supreme Court nomination??? And then the GOP didn't dance like it was a week of Christmas's.

You are acting like the GOP & Trump supporters haven't celebrated the appointment of Conservative nominations as a MASSIVE victory.

You are acting like Conservatives who loathe Trump but support him - haven't justified that support on the back of him appointing those Conservative nominees.

If this is really not such a big deal and is an invention of the Crazy Left ... how and why was it so very very crucial for the GOP?

As for this one example of the Conservative judges and which way they ruled .... some things can't be distorted and twisted and are simple. Right is right.

Others not so much:

https://www.thecut.com/2019/02/brett-kavanaugh-writes-chilling-supreme-court-dissent.html

It's my body,, if I wanna walk down the street naked, that's my business...

There is a price to pay for your actions. You wanna eat fat, do it, but don't expect to live long

Are you really comparing abortion to seat belts..

Everything you said is true, the GOP did all of those things. But the fact is that conservative justices haven't been nearly as loyal to the wishes of the party that appointed them as liberal justices have. So just maybe, the GOP is appointing more open minded justices? Just a thought.

Secondly, the primary reason that the SCOTUS continues to be more and more important, is because congress is a crap show.

The way Pelosi and McConnell have conducted their jobs leading the House and Senate has been every bit as dangerous to the future governing of the republic as anything Donald Trump has done. But the media doesn't care, they don't even talk about it... they are all things Trump all the time. The House and Senate have been turned into their own little oligarchies, where a select few power brokers negotiate deals behind the scenes and the rank and file are expected to shut up and vote the way the party tells them to. There is no debate, there is no open discussion, there are no amendments offered.. to put it simply, the legislative branch isn't legislating and haven't for a while now.

I think you have to go case by case and issue by issue.

If today's society accepts gay marriage - then the ruling in this case is not a left or right verdict. It's the only verdict that could be returned.

Only those of the "Christian Right" who would want to deny what Society has accepted would rule against.... and it highlights the need for separation of state and religion.

You would have to provide examples of where you think "Left" leaning judges have apparently ruled based on politics and not the law - if you want me to accept that one side does it more than the other.

It is not the SCOTUS's job to mirror society and give them what they want because it's popular, it is their job to interpret the constitution.

Yeah, this SCOTUS is gong to keep McConnell in check. Let me know when that happens. People have supported and voted for the most divisive candidates running on divisive platforms.

It's not the politicians to blame, it's the voters.

I don't want to derail this thread, so this is all I will say on the topic.

Where the difference lies on the abortion issue is the threshold of when it stops being "their own body" and starts being "someone else's body." There have been arguments both ways.

Overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't illegalize abortion, like many say, it would just nullify the ruling that abortion is constitutionally protected under one's right to privacy.

The removal of the constitutional protection would then leave the inference that the constitution says nothing about abortion, so it would fall to the states.

Just bringing that up. Sorry if I put dust into the air. I won't go down any rabbit holes on this thread at least.