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.

(Buzzfeed)   Federal judge in Ohio rules that state bans on same sex marriage violate US Constitution   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 427
    More: News, United States Constitution, Ohio, James Obergefell, Anne Arundel County, same-sex marriages, death certificates, Rob Nichols, same-sex couples  
•       •       •

19803 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jul 2013 at 1:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-23 07:19:24 AM

Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh, and this nothing to do with anything really but in a dream last night I had a judge telling me I could only be married if I had a child. I think I've read to much of this kind of stuff, Oh and some hit-man was trying to kill me before that, so ...
/I have weird dreams.

Funny, my dream last night was about waking up fully clothed in a bed with my (female) best friend, who told me "Be careful around loose women.  They'll get you in trouble."  Then a lesbian friend of mine who has the same first name as her walked in and... erm... got me in trouble, while the best friend kept giving me disapproving looks.  She finally said "... and Miss Rhino doesn't know" and then I woke up.

Strangest farking dream I've ever had.

Sure it was, it was just the strangest dream you remember : )

There was also the one two weeks ago about the Nazis invading North Carolina, and the Coast Guard was the only force available to fight them off... and some CG officer said "Hey, that guy's a Marine!  Get over here, Marine!"  and suddenly I was trying to bust people out of some Nazi POW hospital, and the Americans following me kept blowing our cover because they didn't speak German... and when we finally busted through the front door, we saw a Coast Guard cutter launching missiles at the hospital, so we ran away from the building without looking at the explosions.

Do you know who doesn't look at explosions?

Cool guys.

Cool guys don't look at explosions.

[th01.deviantart.net image 850x533]

/Also, hooray for same sex marriage!


You;re supposed to link it.
 
2013-07-23 07:19:46 AM

KeatingFive: A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.



They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.
 
2013-07-23 07:22:35 AM
Wow. Someone in this thread actually took that post seriously.

Not sure if shocked or sad.
 
2013-07-23 07:30:21 AM
mike_d85:
I used to have a reoccurring dream where I would be on a terrace high in the mountains with an old Chineese man. I would then go through the house and pass through a series of rooms that were rather like movie sets. One was a blackjack room with tuxedos and cocktail waitresses, one was a rough bar with random fighting. In each room there would be a person who I identified with.

The Chinaman is not the issue here, dude.
 
2013-07-23 07:33:06 AM

FormlessOne: twat_waffle: Everyone knows that B-Rock "The Islamic Shock" HUSSEIN Superallah Obama used his time machine

OK, you had me at "B-Rock".


"Now, B-Rock says this. He's going to take your ban on same-sex marriage.... shine it up real nice.... turn that sumbiatch sidewys, and stick straight up Ohio's candy ass!"

"If you SMEEEELLLLLLLLLL LAALALALALALAAAAAAAAA.... WHAT B-ROCK.... IS.... COOKIN'!"
 
2013-07-23 07:36:07 AM

Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS


No he won't. The state has already set precedent by recognising marriages from other states that aren't allowed in Ohio (as cited in the ruling). THAT is the precedent that applies.
 
2013-07-23 07:38:33 AM

ambassador_ahab: Zeppelininthesky: Too bad the majority are making life harder by trying to force their beliefs on the rest of the nation.

Exactly.  If you're in a straight marriage and want to stay in it, nobody is going to force you to get a divorce and then go get gay married.


But without the divorce it would be Polygamy!
 
2013-07-23 07:40:19 AM

Neighborhood Watch: KeatingFive: A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.


They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.


No. It takes a majority of the people who bothered to vote. Not a majority of the actual people.

Again, a small band of nuts with 100% participation sounds like a majority of everyone. It's simply not true. And a small band of nuts can get away with things, for a while, until the actual majority wakes up and pays attention. Hopefully before too much real damage is done.
 
2013-07-23 07:40:20 AM

Neighborhood Watch: KeatingFive: A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.


They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.


A majority of people who happen to vote at that one vote. In NC, they tacked on the constitutional amendment vote with the Republican primary. Surprisingly enough, a majority of Republicans voted during that election, even though Republicans don't even make up a plurality of registered voters in NC.
 
2013-07-23 07:40:47 AM
I woke up with a turtle in the bed next to me and a wedding ring on my finger.

I knew something was up.
 
2013-07-23 07:44:15 AM

mike_d85: Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Rhino_man: tinfoil-hat maggie: Oh, and this nothing to do with anything really but in a dream last night I had a judge telling me I could only be married if I had a child. I think I've read to much of this kind of stuff, Oh and some hit-man was trying to kill me before that, so ...
/I have weird dreams.

Funny, my dream last night was about waking up fully clothed in a bed with my (female) best friend, who told me "Be careful around loose women.  They'll get you in trouble."  Then a lesbian friend of mine who has the same first name as her walked in and... erm... got me in trouble, while the best friend kept giving me disapproving looks.  She finally said "... and Miss Rhino doesn't know" and then I woke up.

Strangest farking dream I've ever had.

Sure it was, it was just the strangest dream you remember : )

There was also the one two weeks ago about the Nazis invading North Carolina, and the Coast Guard was the only force available to fight them off... and some CG officer said "Hey, that guy's a Marine!  Get over here, Marine!"  and suddenly I was trying to bust people out of some Nazi POW hospital, and the Americans following me kept blowing our cover because they didn't speak German... and when we finally busted through the front door, we saw a Coast Guard cutter launching missiles at the hospital, so we ran away from the building without looking at the explosions.

Do you know who doesn't look at explosions?

Cool guys.

Cool guys don't look at explosions.

/Also, hooray for same sex marriage!

I used to have a reoccurring dream where I would be on a terrace high in the mountains with an old Chineese man. I would then go through the house and pass through a series of rooms that were rather like movie sets. One was a blackjack room with tuxedos and cocktail waitresses, one was a rough bar with random fighting. In each room there would be a person who I identified with.


I've had a dream a few times where i was in hell. you know, the catholic version of hell and all that. Except i was one of the demons torturing people.
Those were the nights i didn't sleep any longer after waking up.

/probably need therapy, only can't afford it.
 
2013-07-23 07:48:41 AM
Why gay marriage should even be news anymore is beyond me.  It's roughly analogous to 'Today, the Earth rotated'.

/One of my best friends died of ALS, the same as one of these guys - it's a horrible, horrible way to go
 
2013-07-23 07:52:15 AM

Neighborhood Watch: KeatingFive: A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.


They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.


Same here in Oregon.  Record voter turn-out, constitutional ban passed by a landslide.

Wiki

We are going to be one of the last to break.  It will not happen by internal forces, due to the difficulty in reversing constitutional amendments in this state.  It will require some sort of federal action (protected class, reversing DOMA, etc.).

Gays shouldn't feel singled-out though!  Oregon has a long history of bigotry and being slow to allow equal rights.  We were one of the slowest to desegregate, and our Jim Crow laws were right up there with the worst of 'em.
 
2013-07-23 07:54:37 AM

bk3k: Cyberluddite: The only reason this judge ruled that bans on same-sex marriage violate the Constitution is that bans on same-sex marriage obviously violate the Constitution. There is really no viable argument to the contrary, and I defy anybody to come up with one.

JESUS


My gardener doesn't care.
 
2013-07-23 07:55:53 AM

Neighborhood Watch: They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.



KeatingFive: No. It takes a majority of the people who bothered to vote. Not a majority of the actual people.

Again, a small band of nuts with 100% participation sounds like a majority of everyone. It's simply not true. And a small band of nuts can get away with things, for a while, until the actual majority wakes up and pays attention.



By your logic, a few hundred screaming feminists (hurling tampons, urine and feces) should have been able to overturn Texas' ban on abortions past 20 weeks... just because they were the loudest.  They couldn't.  They couldn't do it because that's not what Texas voters (i.e. the actual majority) wanted.

Same thing in Wisconsin with the union vote do-over and the election do-over.

Same thing in Ohio.

If you're saying that the 'real majority' couldn't be bothered to vote against a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage, then that so-called 'real majority' only exists in your imagination.  There's a way to test that, though.  Democrats can propose amending the state constitution again, for the purpose of un-doing the previous amendment.  Like, why not try that and see if the 'real majority' shows up this time?  Why not just try a Wisconsin style do-over to get the 'real majority' to the polls?
 
2013-07-23 07:58:45 AM

hubiestubert: Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...


I can only speak for Georgia, but I know their constitutional amendment specifically denies reciprocity.  I don't have the time, and I'm sure there are some unemployed history majors, but I would be curious to know how many other issues the states throw reciprocity in the dumpster.
 
2013-07-23 07:59:40 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Neighborhood Watch: They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.


KeatingFive: No. It takes a majority of the people who bothered to vote. Not a majority of the actual people.

Again, a small band of nuts with 100% participation sounds like a majority of everyone. It's simply not true. And a small band of nuts can get away with things, for a while, until the actual majority wakes up and pays attention.


By your logic, a few hundred screaming feminists (hurling tampons, urine and feces) should have been able to overturn Texas' ban on abortions past 20 weeks... just because they were the loudest.  They couldn't.  They couldn't do it because that's not what Texas voters (i.e. the actual majority) wanted.

Same thing in Wisconsin with the union vote do-over and the election do-over.

Same thing in Ohio.

If you're saying that the 'real majority' couldn't be bothered to vote against a constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage, then that so-called 'real majority' only exists in your imagination.  There's a way to test that, though.  Democrats can propose amending the state constitution again, for the purpose of un-doing the previous amendment.  Like, why not try that and see if the 'real majority' shows up this time?  Why not just try a Wisconsin style do-over to get the 'real majority' to the polls?


Or we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.
 
2013-07-23 08:09:41 AM

exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.



When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights
 
2013-07-23 08:12:21 AM

doglover: revrendjim: This is a big farking deal.

But it's canceled by the fact it's in Ohio.

Now, if this could happen in a real state....


Name one.
 
2013-07-23 08:12:43 AM

Neighborhood Watch: gaspode: the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid.


I'd sure like to get a hold of that crystal ball you're using.  I need a winning lottery ticket!

Anyway, the Supreme Court has already ruled.  They said it was an individual state matter.  One lower court can't come in behind them and change that ruling.  That's not how it works, dude.  Did you even read TFA, or the Ohio AG's response?


did you read US v. Windsor?
 
2013-07-23 08:18:29 AM

Kuroshin: Neighborhood Watch: KeatingFive: A minority of very vocal bigots don't want this, very loudly. But the actual majority of people in Ohio are OK with gay marriage.


They amended their Constitution to ban homosexual marriage.  It takes a majority to do that.

Same here in Oregon.  Record voter turn-out, constitutional ban passed by a landslide.

Wiki

We are going to be one of the last to break.  It will not happen by internal forces, due to the difficulty in reversing constitutional amendments in this state.  It will require some sort of federal action (protected class, reversing DOMA, etc.).

Gays shouldn't feel singled-out though!  Oregon has a long history of bigotry and being slow to allow equal rights.  We were one of the slowest to desegregate, and our Jim Crow laws were right up there with the worst of 'em.


Oregon is a beautiful state but the huge support to ban gay marriage was actually a big reason my wife and I didn't move there. We figured if people were that willing to take away the rights of minorities we'd rather not support the local government with our taxes.

In other words, tell your fellow residents to get their shiat together. It is actually costing your state money.
 
2013-07-23 08:18:41 AM

hubiestubert: Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...


This argument works for conceal carry licenses too. Hope liberals realize that .
 
2013-07-23 08:19:37 AM

Neighborhood Watch: exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.


When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights


wut
 
2013-07-23 08:20:16 AM

hardinparamedic: You sodomites.


Ezekiel 16:49 - Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

/know he's trolling
//just a reminder
 
2013-07-23 08:22:49 AM

MyRandomName: hubiestubert: Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...

This argument works for conceal carry licenses too. Hope liberals realize that .


I'm just asking..but don't most states allow concealed  carry?
/not a gun nut
 
2013-07-23 08:24:59 AM

Neighborhood Watch: exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.


When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights


Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?  Marriage equality is a civil rights issue that social conservatives have already lost, get used to it.
 
2013-07-23 08:25:25 AM

Oxygen_Thief: MyRandomName: hubiestubert: Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...

This argument works for conceal carry licenses too. Hope liberals realize that .

I'm just asking..but don't most states allow concealed  carry?
/not a gun nut


It isn't always reciprocal. If you plan to conceal carry across state lines you better be damn sure what states honor your permit.
 
2013-07-23 08:25:51 AM

Oxygen_Thief: Neighborhood Watch: gaspode: the supreme court WILL eventually rule that the day one state allowed it all states were compelled to at least recognise it as valid.


I'd sure like to get a hold of that crystal ball you're using.  I need a winning lottery ticket!

Anyway, the Supreme Court has already ruled.  They said it was an individual state matter.  One lower court can't come in behind them and change that ruling.  That's not how it works, dude.  Did you even read TFA, or the Ohio AG's response?

did you read US v. Windsor?



Reading are hard for Neighborhood Watch. Give the 4 day old sock puppet troll alt a break.
 
2013-07-23 08:26:27 AM

Oxygen_Thief: did you read US v. Windsor?



That had to do with federal government benefits and taxes in the states that recognize homosexual marriage.

The decision had nothing to do with states that don't.
 
2013-07-23 08:27:45 AM
Good
 
2013-07-23 08:28:45 AM

Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?



I don't know.  Why don't you grab a bullhorn, go out to the local Travon rally and ask them?
 
2013-07-23 08:28:50 AM

Neighborhood Watch: exatron: we could just stop trying to vote and/or legislate people's civil rights away.


When you can get a majority of blacks to agree that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue, I'll stop laughing.

/The Supreme Court didn't even equate homosexual marriage with civil rights


Hmm.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Skinner v. Oklahoma,  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&v ol=316&invol=535#541" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153); text-decoration: none; ">316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill,  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=125&invo l=190" style="color: rgb(0, 102, 153); text-decoration: none; ">125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Yeah, you're right. There's absolutely no precedent.

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Yup.  Marriage is not a civil right.
 
2013-07-23 08:32:39 AM

Mister Peejay: SpdrJay: But why would a gay person want to live in Ohio anyway?

IIRC, Ohio contains the second- or third-largest gay community in the country.

The problem with Ohio is that it's small, dense pockets of sanity surrounded by a bazillion acres where corn and derp are grown.


Missouri is about the same. Used to be a swing state in presidential elections, until 2008.
 
2013-07-23 08:34:56 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?


I don't know.  Why don't you grab a bullhorn, go out to the local Travon rally and ask them?


And the troll gets back to his comfort zone.
 
2013-07-23 08:35:12 AM

Notabunny: So is my opposite-sex marriage now destroyed, or am I now gay, or am I supposed to marry a turtle?


As long as it's a gay turtle, I think you are okay...
 
2013-07-23 08:35:45 AM
demaL-demaL-yeH, you can site rulings from OK (that nobody paid attention to) all day long.  If the US Supreme Court majority believed that homosexual marriage was a constitutional 'civil right', then it would have said so and struck down DOMA in its entirety and all states would be compelled to honor homosexual marriages, period.

They didn't do that.  I wonder why?  Do you know, oh legal expert?

However, I fully expect that Obama will legalize homosexual marriage on all military bases before leaving office.  Probably on his last day.  That'll throw a wrench into the works!
 
2013-07-23 08:37:19 AM

Carth: Oxygen_Thief: MyRandomName: hubiestubert: Reciprocity, how does that work again?

They were legally married, and even if you're not real thrilled by the thought, if it was legal in the state it was performed in, it's legal in your state. Unless of course folks really want to open that whole miscegenation thing again...

This argument works for conceal carry licenses too. Hope liberals realize that .

I'm just asking..but don't most states allow concealed  carry?
/not a gun nut

It isn't always reciprocal. If you plan to conceal carry across state lines you better be damn sure what states honor your permit.


huh interesting thanks
 
2013-07-23 08:38:27 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?


I don't know.  Why don't you grab a bullhorn, go out to the local Travon rally and ask them?


People tend to champion the causes that are closest to them. While I'm sure a rainbow parade has sympathies for other minority rights groups, they're marching to raise awareness wrt a specific circumstance. The same goes for Trayvon rallies. Gun shows rallying around personal rights about bearing arms aren't expected to cheer for same sex marriage and racial equality simply because they're championing a civil liberties cause, are they?
 
2013-07-23 08:40:08 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Oxygen_Thief: did you read US v. Windsor?


That had to do with federal government benefits and taxes in the states that recognize homosexual marriage.

The decision had nothing to do with states that don't.


dangerously wrong..So says Scalia.

Scalia "They're doing it to us again you fools!"
 
2013-07-23 08:42:36 AM

Oxygen_Thief: Neighborhood Watch: Oxygen_Thief: did you read US v. Windsor?


That had to do with federal government benefits and taxes in the states that recognize homosexual marriage.

The decision had nothing to do with states that don't.

dangerously wrong..So says Scalia.

Scalia "They're doing it to us again you fools!"


Scalia knew his dissent would be cited in this way.  How much fun it must have been for Judge Black to do it.

By the way, did anyone see this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/john-arthur-jim-obergefell- ga y-wedding_n_3598627.html
 
2013-07-23 08:46:00 AM

ambassador_ahab: It begins!!!  It starts with a muslim-kenyan-socialist-fascist dictator that was only elected by voter intimidation.

Then we have the Windsor case, and now other federal judges have to respect the Windsor case because of some weird-ass rule B. Hussein Obama made about "binding precedent" whatever the fark that means...and it's like the farking dominoes are finally falling.  Would G. Walker Bush have allowed the liberal tyrants at the Supreme Court to destroy marriage?!  NO!  He would have used his VETO power!

It's time for your come to Jesus moment, libtards.


It's got all the marks of a great troll, including the quite brilliant Judiciary-vs-veto fail, but for some reason, it just doesn't sing. You need to do something to juice this up.

And saying "weird ass-rule" won't be the one.
 
2013-07-23 08:46:09 AM

RealFarknMcCoy2: Oldiron_79: The existing SCOTUS precident is that states do NOT have to recognize types of licenses they do not issue(a precident that has been set in concealed carry license cases) so this judge will likely have his ruling smacked down by appeals court or SCOTUS

No he won't. The state has already set precedent by recognising marriages from other states that aren't allowed in Ohio (as cited in the ruling). THAT is the precedent that applies.


I'll go with McCoy on this one.   Pretty sure the guy who spells it "precident" is not going to be my legal adviser anytime soon.
 
2013-07-23 08:46:18 AM
You mean humans have rights? Wow..who knew
 
2013-07-23 08:47:17 AM
Well, we all knew that a challenge like this would arise.  Time to sort it out.
 
2013-07-23 08:50:33 AM

Neighborhood Watch: Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?


I don't know.  Why don't you grab a bullhorn, go out to the local Travon rally and ask them?


The fark is wrong with you?
 
2013-07-23 08:51:00 AM

Smoking GNU: I've had a dream a few times where i was in hell. you know, the catholic version of hell and all that. Except i was one of the demons torturing people.
Those were the nights i didn't sleep any longer after waking up.

/probably need therapy, only can't afford it.


OK, Dean.

/not obscure
//and I hate my GF for getting me hooked on that show
 
2013-07-23 08:51:51 AM

Biological Ali: Neighborhood Watch: Zeno-25: Since when did black people become the gatekeepers of all civil rights struggles in America?


I don't know.  Why don't you grab a bullhorn, go out to the local Travon rally and ask them?

The fark is wrong with you?


How much time do you have?
 
2013-07-23 08:52:45 AM

Biological Ali: The fark is wrong with you?



Nothing, that I know of.
 
2013-07-23 08:53:11 AM

born_yesterday: I woke up with a turtle in the bed next to me and a wedding ring on my finger.

I knew something was up.


Leave Mitch McConnell out of this...
 
2013-07-23 08:56:19 AM

pootsie: FYI y'all I am reviewing the docket in PACER right now and it appears that Defendants Kasich (Gov.) and DeWine (AG) actually responded to the TRO before the court ruled.  (Technically that takes it out of TRO territory and makes it a preliminary injunction).  Attorneys appeared and argued for all sides


For those of us without legal backgrounds, what is the difference between a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction? Does one carry more weight than the other?
 
Displayed 50 of 427 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report