Options

Judge finds DOMA unconstitutional

2»

Posts

  • Options
    AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I don't see why he shouldn't appeal it, both from a legalistic perspective (shouldn't he, realistically, appeal everything?)

    If you just appeal everything what's the point of even having lower courts?

    Just because someone appeals doesn't mean the higher court has to grant cert.

    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Options
    RUNN1NGMANRUNN1NGMAN Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I don't see why he shouldn't appeal it, both from a legalistic perspective (shouldn't he, realistically, appeal everything?)

    If you just appeal everything what's the point of even having lower courts?

    Just because someone appeals doesn't mean the higher court has to grant cert.

    That's really only true for the Supreme Court and collateral appeals. Pretty sure District Courts have to accept procedurally sufficient direct appeals of federal questions.

    RUNN1NGMAN on
  • Options
    nstfnstf __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    Officially there is a firewall between the Justice Department and the administration; the attorney general is supposed to use independent discretion in these decisions. In practice the president has a lot of power to nudge the AG, and almost certainly appoints AGs who will be pliable.

    Indeed. You don't want a president dictating and messing around with Justice. We all bashed Bush for it, we'd be hypocrites at best then for advocating Obama do it.

    nstf on
  • Options
    mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited July 2010
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Scalfin wrote: »
    I don't see why he shouldn't appeal it, both from a legalistic perspective (shouldn't he, realistically, appeal everything?)

    If you just appeal everything what's the point of even having lower courts?

    To make findings of fact, rule on the evidence, and that kind of thing. In almost all circumstances, an appeal doesn't give you a new trial. An appeal means saying "hey, the lower court made an error of law on this thing." Then the appeals court examines whether that is true (usually under a legal standard that gives great deference to the lower court) and whether it matters.

    Cobag anti-gay groups that are not actually parties to the case have no standing to force an appeal. I think a couple of them tried to become intervenors in the case and failed at the trial level.

    mythago on
    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • Options
    lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    edited July 2010
    The MA case is actually called Gill v. Office of Personnel Management. Today, Judge Tauro ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional, violating the 10th Amendment...

    There were two cases decided, Gill finds on an equal protection grounds, HHS is on the tenth amendment. source
    Gill holds that this violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment because there is no rational basis for denying same sex couples already recognized in a particular state from receiving federal benefits. Massachusetts v. HHS holds that federal programs that deny benefits to married same sex couples violate the Tenth Amendment because they intrude into an function exclusively reserved to states, namely the definition and regulation of marriage. It also holds that selective funding of only opposite sex couples is not within the federal spending power under the General Welfare Clause because it places an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of federal funds.

    A list of some good editorials about the decision here.

    Edit:
    SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is
    amended by adding at the end the following:

    ``Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'

    ``In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
    ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
    bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means
    only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,
    and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is
    a husband or a wife.''.

    Page 110 STAT. 2420

    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of
    chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
    the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

    ``7. Definition of `marriage' and `spouse'.''.

    Full text of DOMA

    lazegamer on
    I would download a car.
Sign In or Register to comment.