Skip to main content

View Diary: How justices decide (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seems to me Kennedy understands the trap in DOMA (0+ / 0-)

    for Prop 8.  If DOMA is unconstitutional due to Am.14, then Prop 8 and the like must be unconstitutional in all 50 states as Kennedy stated, at least if the Court wishes to remain logicvally consistent.  But, as you say, that is not a result he wants.  He wants it unconstitutional only in CA, therefore, to ramain consistent, DOMA must be over ruled on some other, any other, grounds.  Enter Federalism.

    GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

    by SGWM on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 09:18:44 PM PDT

    •  Full Faith and Credit Clause (0+ / 0-)

      Yes but when federalism is used to struck down DOMA but to uphold Prop 8, then enters the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of article 4 of the Constitution:

      Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
      Although the full faith and credit clause was never used to force a state to recognize a marriage it did not wish to recognize., it could very well be used to do exactly that.

      Obama-Biden in 2012: four more years!

      by Frederik on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 02:40:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  only section III of DOMA. (0+ / 0-)

        All of DOMA won't go down, only Section III.  Section II was the abjuration of full faith and credit.  States can still ignore married couples from other states.

        Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

        by lostboyjim on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 09:34:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unconstitutional (0+ / 0-)

          So if section 2 is ever challenged in an other case, it'll be ruled unconstitutional as well. After all, no federal law can negate a section of the constitution, and section 2 directly contravenes article 4.

          Obama-Biden in 2012: four more years!

          by Frederik on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 01:54:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree. So far SCOTUS does NOT. (0+ / 0-)

            From Wikipedia on DOMA

            In August 2007, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Finstuen v. Crutcher ordered Oklahoma to issue a revised birth certificate showing both adoptive parents to a child born in Oklahoma who had been adopted by a same-sex couple married elsewhere.[161] By contrast, in 2011 Louisiana in Adar v. Smith successfully defended in federal court its refusal to amend the birth certificate of a child born in Louisiana and adopted in New York by a same-sex married couple who sought to have a new certificate issued with their names as parents as is standard practice for Louisiana-born children adopted by opposite-sex married couples.[162] The Supreme Court refused to hear the case on appeal.[163]

            On October 2, 2009, a Texas judge granted a divorce to two men married in Massachusetts. On August 31, 2010, the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas reversed the lower court's ruling.[164][165] On January 7, 2011, the Third Court of Appeals in Austin allowed a divorce granted by a lower court to a lesbian couple married in Massachusetts to stand.[166] Both cases await action by the Texas Supreme Court.[167]

            Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

            by lostboyjim on Wed Apr 03, 2013 at 03:57:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site