If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Prop 8 attorney vows to keep on fighting. In other news, old man yells at clouds   (politico.com) divider line 27
    More: Dumbass, attorney-in-fact, Hollingsworth, vows, Christchurch, American Foundation for Equal Rights  
•       •       •

707 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2013 at 8:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



27 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-07-01 08:24:03 AM
You are Governor Wallace standing in the school house door.  That's how you people will be remembered.  That day is coming faster than you think.
 
2013-07-01 08:30:14 AM
This guy is actually the anti-prop 8 lawyer: the good guy.
 
2013-07-01 08:32:32 AM

SphericalTime: This guy is actually the anti-prop 8 lawyer: the good guy.


Then what I said wasn't meant for him.
 
2013-07-01 08:33:26 AM
Keep fighting the good fight.
 
2013-07-01 08:35:38 AM
I would actually understand if the "bad side" wanted to keep fighting, since the way the law works now is simply untenable (in terms of referenda, not gay marriage). The USSC's decision basically means that if a state executive refuses to enforce or defend a state law, there's really nothing anyone can do about it, judicially.
 
2013-07-01 09:17:42 AM

DamnYankees: I would actually understand if the "bad side" wanted to keep fighting, since the way the law works now is simply untenable (in terms of referenda, not gay marriage). The USSC's decision basically means that if a state executive refuses to enforce or defend a state law, there's really nothing anyone can do about it, judicially.


Which is insane since they specifically pointed to this in the DOMA case as why they didn't deny standing: it would imply that the president has the power to effectively repeal any law that is challenged in court. Maybe I missed where they pointed out the AZ residence of the defendants, but seeing as it was a proposition put to a popular vote then I don't see how only the state government who didn't even pass the bill has exclusive rights to defend it.

Note I say all this as an opponent of Prop 8 who thinks that if the Supreme Court weren't making a political calculation they would have to concede Vaughn Walker's ruling was completely accurate.
 
2013-07-01 09:19:33 AM

Grungehamster: DamnYankees: I would actually understand if the "bad side" wanted to keep fighting, since the way the law works now is simply untenable (in terms of referenda, not gay marriage). The USSC's decision basically means that if a state executive refuses to enforce or defend a state law, there's really nothing anyone can do about it, judicially.

Which is insane since they specifically pointed to this in the DOMA case as why they didn't deny standing: it would imply that the president has the power to effectively repeal any law that is challenged in court. Maybe I missed where they pointed out the AZ residence of the defendants, but seeing as it was a proposition put to a popular vote then I don't see how only the state government who didn't even pass the bill has exclusive rights to defend it.

Note I say all this as an opponent of Prop 8 who thinks that if the Supreme Court weren't making a political calculation they would have to concede Vaughn Walker's ruling was completely accurate.


I think the DOMA case was different inasmuch as the group that defended the case wasn't private - it was still representing the government, just a different branch. I'm not sure how much that distinctions matters in the big scheme of things, but it is a difference.
 
2013-07-01 09:34:39 AM

DamnYankees: Grungehamster: DamnYankees: I would actually understand if the "bad side" wanted to keep fighting, since the way the law works now is simply untenable (in terms of referenda, not gay marriage). The USSC's decision basically means that if a state executive refuses to enforce or defend a state law, there's really nothing anyone can do about it, judicially.

Which is insane since they specifically pointed to this in the DOMA case as why they didn't deny standing: it would imply that the president has the power to effectively repeal any law that is challenged in court. Maybe I missed where they pointed out the AZ residence of the defendants, but seeing as it was a proposition put to a popular vote then I don't see how only the state government who didn't even pass the bill has exclusive rights to defend it.

Note I say all this as an opponent of Prop 8 who thinks that if the Supreme Court weren't making a political calculation they would have to concede Vaughn Walker's ruling was completely accurate.

I think the DOMA case was different inasmuch as the group that defended the case wasn't private - it was still representing the government, just a different branch. I'm not sure how much that distinctions matters in the big scheme of things, but it is a difference.


Their other issue is that they could not prove harm - which is a critical part of standing.

Also, I wonder if there's a difference between an executive not defending an appeal versus an initial case.

And if the executive doesn't defend a case, the judge would still have to actually rule on the initial claim - and do so based on the law not just the preferences of the parties.
 
2013-07-01 09:35:42 AM

Deneb81: Their other issue is that they could not prove harm - which is a critical part of standing.


I don't really get that either. If you were the group that spent a ton of money to get the law passed, way more than the average person, isn't it a harm to see your efforts intentionally ignored?
 
2013-07-01 09:52:06 AM

DamnYankees: Deneb81: Their other issue is that they could not prove harm - which is a critical part of standing.

I don't really get that either. If you were the group that spent a ton of money to get the law passed, way more than the average person, isn't it a harm to see your efforts intentionally ignored?


Especially since the group is based in another state.
 
2013-07-01 09:58:30 AM

DamnYankees: Deneb81: Their other issue is that they could not prove harm - which is a critical part of standing.

I don't really get that either. If you were the group that spent a ton of money to get the law passed, way more than the average person, isn't it a harm to see your efforts intentionally ignored?


if i spend millions to open a chain of restaurants serving sparrowburgers, and no one eats there, am i harmed, or did i just waste time and resources on a fool's errand?
 
2013-07-01 09:59:33 AM

dionysusaur: DamnYankees: Deneb81: Their other issue is that they could not prove harm - which is a critical part of standing.

I don't really get that either. If you were the group that spent a ton of money to get the law passed, way more than the average person, isn't it a harm to see your efforts intentionally ignored?

if i spend millions to open a chain of restaurants serving sparrowburgers, and no one eats there, am i harmed, or did i just waste time and resources on a fool's errand?


That has nothing to do with standing.
 
2013-07-01 10:12:50 AM

DamnYankees: I would actually understand if the "bad side" wanted to keep fighting, since the way the law works now is simply untenable (in terms of referenda, not gay marriage). The USSC's decision basically means that if a state executive refuses to enforce or defend a state law, there's really nothing anyone can do about it, judicially.


DamnYankees: I think the DOMA case was different inasmuch as the group that defended the case wasn't private - it was still representing the government, just a different branch. I'm not sure how much that distinctions matters in the big scheme of things, but it is a difference.


Well, there's a solution for the anti-SSM crowd - if your party controls one of the houses of government, you can take over standing like the House and BLAP did for the DOJ.
 
2013-07-01 10:27:59 AM

nekom: You are Governor Wallace standing in the school house door.  That's how you people will be remembered.  That day is coming faster than you think.

 
2013-07-01 10:29:02 AM
So to speak - not referring to the attorney (who's actually fighting for LGBT rights), but to the whole situation in general. It's absurd.
 
2013-07-01 10:33:42 AM
"dumbass?" really, homophobemitter?
 
2013-07-01 12:05:53 PM

FlashHarry: "dumbass?" really, homophobemitter?


In Subbys defence, I got the sides confused, too.
 
2013-07-01 01:03:39 PM

DamnYankees: Deneb81: Their other issue is that they could not prove harm - which is a critical part of standing.

I don't really get that either. If you were the group that spent a ton of money to get the law passed, way more than the average person, isn't it a harm to see your efforts intentionally ignored?


So you're saying that if I spend a ton of money in order to make it legal to own slaves, it should automagically become law?  Regardless of whatever other laws it breaks?  It would be harmful if that law was struck down by courts for violating the constitution?

Seriously, you're a goddamned moron.

DamnYankees: dionysusaur: DamnYankees: Deneb81: Their other issue is that they could not prove harm - which is a critical part of standing.

I don't really get that either. If you were the group that spent a ton of money to get the law passed, way more than the average person, isn't it a harm to see your efforts intentionally ignored?

if i spend millions to open a chain of restaurants serving sparrowburgers, and no one eats there, am i harmed, or did i just waste time and resources on a fool's errand?

That has nothing to do with standing.


Actually, it does.  It is exactly equivalent to this.  See the bolded portion.
 
2013-07-01 01:06:03 PM

friday13: Actually, it does.  It is exactly equivalent to this.  See the bolded portion.


I dont think you know what standing is.
 
2013-07-01 01:19:18 PM
They should check with Leland Yee about how that's destined to turn out...

/or any of the other, old, bitter, backward people looking to infringe on a basic right
 
2013-07-01 01:53:58 PM
SCOTUS did the correct thing with standing. The court system does not need to be bogged down with citizen backers defending laws in federal court. This puts the onus on state attorneys general and governors to do their damn jobs.
 
2013-07-01 01:54:22 PM

DamnYankees: friday13: Actually, it does.  It is exactly equivalent to this.  See the bolded portion.

I dont think you know what standing is.


Better than you, apparantly.

There was no harm because these idiots  knew going in that it was possible - if not likely - that they would fail, either on an electoral level or in a legal challenge should they succeed there.  They then willingly put up the money.  There was no (as far as we know) theft, nor was any information that would have changed their minds about their actions withheld from them (fraud), nor was there any bodily injury, nor were any of their previously enforceable contracts null and void upon the repeal; all of which would fulfill the "harm" requirement for standing.  They took a gamble, and it didn't pay off.  What you're proposing is like suing the casino because you lost the life saving you bet at their poker table.  Hence why the analogy holds up.
 
2013-07-01 02:34:32 PM

friday13: DamnYankees: friday13: Actually, it does.  It is exactly equivalent to this.  See the bolded portion.

I dont think you know what standing is.

Better than you, apparantly.

There was no harm because these idiots  knew going in that it was possible - if not likely - that they would fail, either on an electoral level or in a legal challenge should they succeed there.  They then willingly put up the money.  There was no (as far as we know) theft, nor was any information that would have changed their minds about their actions withheld from them (fraud), nor was there any bodily injury, nor were any of their previously enforceable contracts null and void upon the repeal; all of which would fulfill the "harm" requirement for standing.  They took a gamble, and it didn't pay off.  What you're proposing is like suing the casino because you lost the life saving you bet at their poker table.  Hence why the analogy holds up.



No no no, you have it all wrong. They did have standing, because they were harmed, because Jebus and the Holy Babble and therefore reasons in such as stuff.

/or something
 
2013-07-01 03:03:11 PM
SCOTUS puts its stamp on Roe V Wade many years back but the GOP still keeps trying to pull the rug out from under it. I think we are in for many years of fundies attacking gay rights.
 
2013-07-01 04:10:29 PM

grumpfuff: friday13: DamnYankees: friday13: Actually, it does.  It is exactly equivalent to this.  See the bolded portion.

I dont think you know what standing is.

Better than you, apparantly.

There was no harm because these idiots  knew going in that it was possible - if not likely - that they would fail, either on an electoral level or in a legal challenge should they succeed there.  They then willingly put up the money.  There was no (as far as we know) theft, nor was any information that would have changed their minds about their actions withheld from them (fraud), nor was there any bodily injury, nor were any of their previously enforceable contracts null and void upon the repeal; all of which would fulfill the "harm" requirement for standing.  They took a gamble, and it didn't pay off.  What you're proposing is like suing the casino because you lost the life saving you bet at their poker table.  Hence why the analogy holds up.


No no no, you have it all wrong. They did have standing, because they were harmed, because Jebus and the Holy Babble and therefore reasons in such as stuff.

/or something


I usually go "Holly Babble" myself, and then up the ante with "and no, I do not want Jeebus Chrast as my lard and savory; I have plenty of oil and shortening as it is, and I don't think he'd go very good in the tacos."
 
2013-07-01 04:34:23 PM

friday13: I usually go "Holly Babble" myself, and then up the ante with "and no, I do not want Jeebus Chrast as my lard and savory; I have plenty of oil and shortening as it is, and I don't think he'd go very good in the tacos."


Ha! You. You I like.

/and damn you for making me hungry when I haven't eaten yet
 
2013-07-01 10:34:04 PM
Dumbass tag for failmitter who didn't read the whole article?
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report