Skip to main content

View Diary: Free-spending Republican leadership not putting mouth where money is on DOMA review (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No if neither party (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gizmo59, idbecrazyif

    has standing the Court can't reach the merits at all.

    I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
    @indiemcemopants on Twitter

    by Scottie Thomaston on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 12:59:01 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Not really, its the 1st decision that sets it up (0+ / 0-)

      Every single person I've talked to over at scotusblog has said that if there ruled no standing, the issue will be the scope of the results.

      It would bring up interesting scenarios and create a true battle with equal protection under the law.

      I suspect scotus doing this because they want to rule on the larger question, not this narrowly defined scope.

      --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

      by idbecrazyif on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:03:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Huh? (3+ / 0-)

        The Court can't hear a case if no party has standing to be there. It would be dismissed. I'm not sure what you're saying. If they can't hear the Second Circuit case and it gets dismissed then Section 3 of DOMA would be invalid in that circuit or possibly just the district court. But only a decision on the merits would invalidate the law in the United States.

        So there would be a situation where if no one has standing to appear it would just be unconstitutional in one place.

        There is no way for the Court to say there is no standing and still invalidate the law in its entirety.

        I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
        @indiemcemopants on Twitter

        by Scottie Thomaston on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:10:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The 1st's decision would stand (0+ / 0-)

          Go read their decision, all that would matter would be the scope

          --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

          by idbecrazyif on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:20:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Court is holding (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            idbecrazyif

            the First Circuit case. If they dismiss the Second Circuit case you're saying that the First Circuit decision would stand automatically?

            I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
            @indiemcemopants on Twitter

            by Scottie Thomaston on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:25:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thats the held view by most now yes (0+ / 0-)

              The standing issue is interesting because technically speaking this standing issue one could argue that Windsor also has no standing.

              Lyle Denniston has some great write ups about it over at scotusblog

              --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

              by idbecrazyif on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:35:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  But Windsor's standing (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                idbecrazyif, librarisingnsf

                doesn't come up because the Court granted the Justice Department's petition and not Windsor's. I agree that it would have been an issue - she won her case and then petitioned for cert - but they didn't grant her petition.

                And I'm not sure how the First Circuit case would be affected by a dismissal of the Second Circuit's. After all if they are still holding it they can just as easily grant it after they dismiss the Second Circuit's case and decide the merits of the First Circuit decision. In other words the First Circuit decision is still in limbo as long as the Court is holding on to it.

                I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
                @indiemcemopants on Twitter

                by Scottie Thomaston on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:39:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well thats part of the debate as well, seriously (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  willyr

                  there are some really smart people scratching their heads on how this might play out should it be ruled on standing.

                  Perhaps the court just wants to try and reach back and shrink who qualifies for standing so that they can then in future cases throw out more stuff?

                  Who knows really, I really would love to ask someone like Scalia or Kagan "Just what are you guys thinking here?"

                  --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                  by idbecrazyif on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:42:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is very plausible: (4+ / 0-)
                    Perhaps the court just wants to try and reach back and shrink who qualifies for standing so that they can then in future cases throw out more stuff?
                    The Roberts Court has tried to limit who is able to get into court dramatically over the years. They've made the filing of a complaint more difficult and made standing requirements more stringent.

                    I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
                    @indiemcemopants on Twitter

                    by Scottie Thomaston on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 01:45:37 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You should go to law school, Scottie (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Scottie Thomaston, idbecrazyif

                      I think I suggested that back when you were first posting as Indie.

                      From personal experience I can tell you that there's a lot about being a law student ---and a lawyer---not to like, but there's a lot of interesting work to be done in the civil rights field, and your writing and interests seem like you're a natural.

                      Just my opinion.

                      Cheers.

                      Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

                      by willyr on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 03:21:15 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I've wanted to (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LuvSet, willyr, idbecrazyif

                        pretty much every waking moment since I was a teenager. Lack of opportunity and money. (Haven't even gone to college.) But I've been teaching myself a lot of this stuff just out of sheer interest (and probably badly.)

                        I am proud to be a Contributor at Courage Campaign Institute's Prop8TrialTracker.com
                        @indiemcemopants on Twitter

                        by Scottie Thomaston on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 05:05:28 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  There are lots of was to be an advocate (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Scottie Thomaston, idbecrazyif

                          and being a lawyer is only one.

                          It can be a long (and expensive) slog, but there are alternative ways to get the requisite degrees/credentials. In some states you used to be able to "clerk" for a lawyer instead of going to law school. Not sure if any jurisdictions still do that.

                          In any case, I encourage you to look into it, and most certainly to keep working in civil rights. We need more like you.

                          Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

                          by willyr on Tue Dec 11, 2012 at 06:23:03 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Very few anymore (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            willyr

                            California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington

                            Maine I think allows 'apprenticeship' while New York requires at least one year of law school at an accredited institution.

                            Which is a shame, because I've known clerks who know more about the law than the actual lawyer they are working for.

                            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                            by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:38:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Thats what scares me about this case (0+ / 0-)

                      That we'll get what we want now, with sacrifice for later.

                      --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                      by idbecrazyif on Wed Dec 12, 2012 at 05:35:24 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site