Equality news round-up: Kansas marriage hearing today, and more
October 31, 2014
LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials
– The defendants in the Kansas marriage case have submitted exhibits related to their opposition to an injunction. There’s a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction today.
– The Washington Blade discusses LGBT migrants in Mexico.
– Laurence Tribe discusses gay rights at SCOTUSBlog.
– Most Americans oppose employment discrimination against LGBT people, even if the discrimination is based on religious belief.
Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings
Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!
183 Comments
1.
DACiowan | October 31, 2014 at 8:42 am
With Judge Hinkle in Tallahassee mulling the current stay, I'm thinking we might get Florida before the Sixth rules (86 days now).
2.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | October 31, 2014 at 8:59 am
I agree on a ruling of the request to end the temporary stay by Judge Hinkle before we hear from the 6CA up in Cincinnati. However, I think we'll also see a temporary stay added to it for the 7 day period to allow AG Bondi to request a stay pending the already applied for appeal to the 11CA…and sadly, out of an "abundance of caution" I expect the 11CA motions panel to stay the injunction until the appeal is heard and ruled on. So with that (and assuming the 6CA rules in favor or marriage equality), I think we get MI/OH/KY/TN before FL.
3.
DrPatrick1 | October 31, 2014 at 10:06 am
I disagree. I think the stays are about done. Certainly anything can happen, but my money is on no stay…
4.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | October 31, 2014 at 10:29 am
Your money is on the marriages to be allowed to proceed in Florida while the 11CA continues to have briefs filed, oral arguments completed, and then a decision to be produced? I'd love to see it, but not sure I'd put money on it.
I would go as far to say when the 11CA files their decision to allow marriage equality to proceed in Florida (and essentially give GA and AL the green light to those cases) that no stay will be issued by the 11CA while AG Bondi appeals to the SCOTUS.
5.
DrPatrick1 | October 31, 2014 at 11:00 am
I agree that once the 11th rules, no stay should be issued
I also agree, that unlike in the 4th, 10th, and 9th where binding on point circuit precedent exists which should rule out any stays being issued even at the district court level, in the 5th, 8th, and 11th no such precedent exists, and thus there may be justification for the stays (as was issued in the other circuits prior to SCOTUS denying cert).
Having said that, I think one would be hard pressed in the 11th to suggest that a district court win for equality will likely be reversed. The denying (by delaying) of a fundamental right is not something that should be taken lightly. I think it is at least reasonable to have hope that the stays are over, at least for the 11th circuit.
It we were talking about the 8th, I wouldn't be so bullish. I think there is a much stronger case there that binding precedent supports a stay.
This also begs the question of what about the PR case. Well, I think it is most likely that the 1st overrules the dismissal of the case, which will turn it back to the district court. The judge there will likely then rule (without relying on Baker, though by citing Baker as one part of his justification) that the discrimination in PR is constitutional. This will then be appealed to the First Circuit, which will over rule and require the district judge to issue the injunction. The Judge will then recuse himself from the case (showing his bias and laying bare the fact that he was never an unbiased judge in the case from the get go) and another district judge will then quickly issue the injunction as mandated by the 1st circuit. What I have described is a very lengthy process, and barring intervention by SCOTUS granting cert in a CA case which upholds discrimination (the 5th or 8th are my most likely candidates), may mean that PR may end up being the last part of the US with ME…
6.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | October 31, 2014 at 11:37 am
Agree with you on pretty much everything stated, I just don't know if the 11CA will not grant a stay while they are in the midst of the appeal on Brenner v. Armstrong (speaking of which, when the hell are oral arguments – I thought briefing was completed at this point?). Easiest way to know would be for Judge Hinkle to hurry the hell up and lift his temporary stay and start the 7 day mini-stay to allow the State of Florida file a stay pending the appeal to the 11CA and get an answer.
Agree on Puerto Rico, that case has a long way to go given it basically is going to start over again once the 1CA vacates the motion to dismiss and remands for proceeding with the case.
7.
Ragavendran | October 31, 2014 at 11:46 am
I would be all for the 11th denying a stay pending appeal, but perhaps granting a temporary 3-day stay to allow Bondi to ask the Supreme Court for a stay. It'll be nice to put a feeler out to gauge what the Court thinks about stays in cases where an appellate court hasn't ruled yet. Let's hope we get a good motions panel.
The briefing at the 11th Circuit hasn't even started yet. Bondi sought and obtained a one-month extension to file the opening brief, now due November 14.
8.
wes228 | October 31, 2014 at 11:53 am
Well there doesn't seem to be any effort whatsoever to get ME in the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, or American Samoa…so who knows if they will ever allow same-sex couples to marry.
9.
ebohlman | October 31, 2014 at 1:46 pm
There have been legislative efforts in the VI in recent months.
AFAIK the Pacific territories don't ban marriage by same-sex couples but don't explicitly allow it either; they're pretty much where NM used to be.
10.
DrPatrick1 | October 31, 2014 at 12:11 pm
I would also remind everyone that very few predicted that SCOTUS would Deny cert in the 10th and 4th circuit cases. I said that it was quite possible they would deny cert altogether, and that was my prediction, though I wouldn't have been surprised if they had granted in UT. Ultimately, many on this site shot me down for my lack of legal knowledge in making such a preposterous opinion. Ultimately my prediction did prove to be true.
Basically, we are all just making a guess.
11.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | October 31, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Remind me to chat with you during the Kentucky Derby next May! 😉
Agree with you, we are all just trying to get into the heads of the district and circuit court judges and the justices as to what they are going to do. The no circuit split was the route the SCOTUS took, even in the face of Baker. Here's hoping your prediction with the 11CA holds true as well, as I know I for one would like my federally recognized marriage D.C. marriage to be recognized by the State of Florida having lived here for the past 12 years.
12.
davepCA | October 31, 2014 at 12:54 pm
I believe you are entitled to an "I told you so" comment.
Italics or all caps are optional. : )
13.
DrPatrick1 | October 31, 2014 at 4:19 pm
It's just that anything can happen. What is perhaps the most certain, the more specific and sure the prediction, the less likely it is to match the future.
I didn't mean to say I told you so. I meant to say that even unlikely scenarios can come true.
14.
davepCA | October 31, 2014 at 8:24 pm
I didn't mean to imply that your comment above was saying that, I really did mean you were now entitled to post a new comment that WOULD say that. Your diplomacy is admirable! : )
15.
Fledge01 | October 31, 2014 at 7:13 pm
I supported your predictions. I was very surprised that so many people assumed SCOTUS would take the case, SCOTUS did what the law told them to do. Taking a case before a split is unusual also, taking a case on such a new topic that has not had less than a year to become ripe goes against everything juris prudence requires. Both sides wanted a ruling, so they thought SCOTUS would accommodate them since this was a big issue in the press. But the courts should take cases based on popularity.
You are right we are making guesses, but these guess are based on law. The people that thought SCOTUS would take the case were making their assumptions based on emotion not on law. I think the stays are over because the irreparable harm on the state and legal chaos has proven to be non existent. And the justices know where this has to end up now. So delaying the movement of ME toward its inevitable outcome is the only harm that exists.
16.
brandall | October 31, 2014 at 8:46 am
Happy Halloween….now give me a treat. Just one new ME state this week.
17.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | October 31, 2014 at 9:00 am
Maybe you can get a bench ruling out of Kansas today! What a treat that would be! I can't see any other ME state this week given no ruling from 6CA and Montana and South Carolina are out in November. Even Judge Hinkle lifting his stay in FL will have a temporary stay pending the request for a stay pending the on-going appeal to the 11CA.
18.
ragefirewolf | November 2, 2014 at 9:51 am
Guess they went for trick…sorry, Brandall. :-/
19.
brandall | November 2, 2014 at 6:58 pm
Argle-Bargle.
20.
Zack12 | October 31, 2014 at 11:36 am
Waiting for news out of Kansas but nothing yet.
21.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | October 31, 2014 at 11:38 am
I'm guess we've already heard from the 6CA today and basically nada.
22.
guitaristbl | October 31, 2014 at 11:41 am
I think the hearing begins at 2:30 pm CDT, in about 50 minutes.
23.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | October 31, 2014 at 12:44 pm
We need a real-time reporter in that courtroom! 15 minutes into the hearing… I'm already anxious to hear anything!
24.
Ragavendran | October 31, 2014 at 12:07 pm
Is Ted Cruz evolving on gay marriage (relatively speaking)?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/10/30…
25.
guitaristbl | October 31, 2014 at 12:16 pm
Nonsense. That's the same thing Cruz has been saying for a very long time and a relatively mainstream opinion in the republican party nowdays to shrug off ME questions : "if the citizens vote for it, ok". They feel safe in their conservative bastions that citizens will not approve of that anytime soon and even if they do, legislatures won't let it happen anytime soon (see Arizona for example with a plurarity and possibly a majority in favour of ME). This way they do not alienate their voters and appear "democratic" to those who have forgot how other civil rights issues for minorities have been decided in the US.
Still Cruz will most certainly submit the federal marriage amendment as he promised, especially if they take the senate.
26.
Zack12 | October 31, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Indeed and the Republicans in congress who claim it's a state issue will gladly vote yes on this bill when it comes to them.
27.
guitaristbl | October 31, 2014 at 12:56 pm
We won't learn now the well known "limited government" and "states rights" of republicans. Limited government when it comes to give our blessings to raw corporate anarchy but huge,invasive and punishing government when it comes to non white heterosexual male (and preferably rich) christians and their freedoms. States rights but only when we agree with what the states do, thus we support the federal marriage amendment, DOMA and RFRC. The hypocrisy is sickening.
28.
RQO | October 31, 2014 at 8:17 pm
Maybe not. Republicans look likely to take Senate control, in which case they have 2 years to either make the point they can function as a government or turn it into the same clown-car circus that is the House. Cruz et al may find himself with even fewer Republican friends than he has now.
29.
Dr. Z | October 31, 2014 at 8:50 pm
If the R's retake the Senate I would expect Cruz will hardly ever show there except when he needs to grandstand a la Sarah Palin. He'll be too busy running for President. Christie and Bush will give him a run for his money.
30.
Ragavendran | October 31, 2014 at 12:47 pm
The gay marriage train has surely left the station. Cruz might have better luck, for example, trying to pass a federal constitutional polygamous/plural marriage amendment, because according to his own line of thinking and the "slippery-slope argument" that anti-gays like him love, that's what is next.
31.
guitaristbl | October 31, 2014 at 12:52 pm
He can do whatever he wants and scream for as long as he wants. I do hope he will be picked as the republican presidential candidate for 2016 honestly ! He is such an arrogant, opportunistic tea bagger, out of touch with any state above NC on the east, he would be the easiest opponent to Clinton according to early polling.
32.
brandall | October 31, 2014 at 1:31 pm
Real-time tweets from a reporter in the Kansas courtroom right now! I will keep updating this comment as new one's come in:
(1) State AG office using Puerto Rico decision as evidence. Says no fundamental right to #gaymarriage.
(2) Doug Bonney of ACLU opens with last stanza of Walt Whitman's "Song of the Open Road."
(3) Judge Crabtree asks Bonney if he's seeking recognition of marriages outside Kansas.
(4) Bonney says no, seeking licenses, stop to state enforcement of #gaymarriage ban.
(5) state arguing for uniform law, either "keep the door shut" or open it for everyone. Wants chief judges to decide, not clerks.
(6) state AG: "The Kansas Supreme Court has to be allowed to go forward and do what it intends to do." Re: pending case before state Supreme Court
(7) state says "truly remarkable" to say Kansas doesn't get a say in #gaymarriage ban.
(8)ACLU's Bonney: it's a federal constitutional question and fed court has jurisdiction. State's arguments "distracting noise."
(9) Bonney: gay couples "want to be married through the licensure system."
(10) Judge Crabtree takes #gaymarriage decision under advisement.
Brandall: Dang, no ruling from the bench….just once in the next 15 states would be so kewl (yes, i know we'll probably never see this on an issue of this magnitude).
33.
brandall | October 31, 2014 at 2:00 pm
To the commentor who posted a now-deleted notice about Crabtree not allowing phones in the courtroom. That might have been true at the time the article found was published, but Peggy Lowe tweeted this two hours before the start of the hearing:
1) "Security officers say we can't bring phones in to Kansas #gaymarriage hearing, despite previous approval from judge."
2) "Hmmmmm…after call to judge, guard allows "ladies" to take phone in to Kansas #gaymarriage hearing."
34.
MichaelGrabow | October 31, 2014 at 2:18 pm
Ladies? Well, that is highly unusual.
35.
guitaristbl | October 31, 2014 at 2:39 pm
What kind of reverse sexism is that ?
36.
Ragavendran | October 31, 2014 at 4:06 pm
Ladies? Were all the reporters today women?
37.
RQO | October 31, 2014 at 8:20 pm
Finally, an official daytime event which screams out an invitation to attend in drag.
38.
guitaristbl | October 31, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Really citing puerto rico as evidence ? The 40+ decisions in favour of ME mean nothing then ? Such poor argumentation..
The Kansas SC has little to nothing to do with a violation of a federal law.
39.
wes228 | October 31, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Funny, I thought Kansas was in the 10th Circuit, not part of Puerto Rico.
40.
guitaristbl | October 31, 2014 at 1:45 pm
Oh if the Puerto Rico decision was one of the few in favour of equality or made a good argument in favour of equality and was used by pro-equality lawyers be sure the state defendants would argue that it's just a "case from the commonwealth" and it should not matter in the "good ol mainland US". But hey it helps (not) now !
41.
StraightDave | October 31, 2014 at 1:45 pm
Wow. That's pretty lame stuff. PR was based on all the dissents that got shot down. KS legal budget must be nearing the bottom of the barrel, along with the rest of their budget. They must not have foreseen the need for a line item for "Defending bigotry from the infidels".
42.
Zack12 | October 31, 2014 at 1:56 pm
This should be an open and shut case.
Kansas falls under the 10th circuit and is thus bound by Kitchen.
Kansas has no leg to stand on, period.
43.
wes228 | October 31, 2014 at 1:58 pm
Ugh I know, like really! Why does this have to be so difficult. These are not complex, intricate laws that might be similar but differ from state to state. They ban gay couples from getting married. It's unconstitutional in Utah; it's unconstitutional in Kansas.
44.
ragefirewolf | October 31, 2014 at 2:51 pm
You would think it's a no-brainer. I can't remember…did the plaintiffs file for a summary judgement considering the 10th Circuit precedent?
45.
Elihu_Bystander | October 31, 2014 at 3:24 pm
" I can't remember…did the plaintiffs file for a summary judgement considering the 10th Circuit precedent?"
Their complaint requested, "declaratory and injunctive relief."
46.
Ragavendran | October 31, 2014 at 4:09 pm
Today's hearing was for a preliminary injunction. It's too early for a normal summary judgment schedule, but the judge has the power to expedite things. Neither side has filed a motion for summary judgment yet.
47.
jdw_karasu | October 31, 2014 at 4:19 pm
It's a dunker for our side. If Crabtree is politically savvy, he'll issue a ruling on Wednesday.
48.
jm64tx | October 31, 2014 at 5:49 pm
Sorry but thats not correct. Federal Court of Appeals rulings are not binding precedent in state courts. State courts only follow their courts of appeals and their supreme court. The only federal court that can overrule a state supreme court is SCOTUS.
49.
Ragavendran | October 31, 2014 at 5:56 pm
"Sorry but that's not correct." What portion of Zach's comment is not correct? The topic is about Kansas defending its ban in federal court today. And I agree with Zach that Kansas has no leg to stand on. How is your comment, the latter part of which I agree with (that federal courts except the supreme court are not binding on state courts) relevant to support your point?
50.
DeadHead | October 31, 2014 at 2:02 pm
I posted my comment on the bottom I don't know why it posted directly to yours.When I saw where it was posted I deleted it immediately didn't mean to lock you out. Sorry!
51.
brandall | October 31, 2014 at 2:12 pm
Apology accepted friend. Figuring out the right "reply" indent can be tricky sometimes. And I do not mean this in a snarky manner. On my iPhone it takes a magnifying glass.
52.
Jaesun100 | October 31, 2014 at 3:41 pm
When do we find out what happened ?
53.
Ragavendran | October 31, 2014 at 4:17 pm
A curious text-only notice released today on the Kansas federal case docket:
NOTICE of Hearing: THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOTICE FOR THIS HEARING (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) Parties are notified that this proceeding will be recorded under the Cameras in Courts pilot unless one or more parties objects. To object to recording, complete the form provided at this link: http://www.ksd.uscourts.gov/cameras-in-courts/ and return it to [email protected] at least five days prior to the proceeding unless otherwise ordered by the judge. Evidentiary Hearing set for 10/31/2014 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 476 (KHV) before District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree.
In other words, if someone objects to the recording, they have to fill out this form today and time-travel back to turn it in "5 days prior to the proceeding"? (I didn't see any other relevant order by the judge on PACER.)
The video is supposed to be made available here:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Multimedia/cameras.aspx
But this case is not listed there yet.
54.
Ragavendran | October 31, 2014 at 4:20 pm
Two more orders in the Kansas federal case that may indicate that a ruling could take a while:
CLERKS ORDER EXTENDING TIME until 11/18/2014 for Defendant Robert D. Moser to answer or otherwise plead. Signed by deputy clerk on 10/31/2014. (ms) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
CLERKS ORDER EXTENDING TIME until 11/18/2014 for Defendants Douglas A. Hamilton and Bernie Lumbreras to answer or otherwise plead. Signed by deputy clerk on 10/31/2014. (ms) (Entered: 10/31/2014)
55.
Rick55845 | October 31, 2014 at 4:48 pm
Delays, delays, delays. WTF?
56.
Dr. Z | October 31, 2014 at 8:54 pm
It's called stalling.
57.
Ragavendran | October 31, 2014 at 5:01 pm
A succinct report: http://m.ljworld.com/news/2014/oct/31/state-urges…
58.
Jaesun100 | October 31, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Thanks !
59.
Ragavendran | October 31, 2014 at 8:15 pm
Just going by this report, I'm annoyed by how unassertive the judge was in (not) admitting that his court is bound by the Tenth Circuit and has no choice but to strike down the ban (and then properly focus the argument towards how similar the bans of Kansas and Utah/Oklahoma are). Instead, if this is how he shows extreme politeness to the state defendants in the face of their inevitable/sure defeat, then that's one thing. But if he is genuinely still unsure about what to do, that is disturbing. Out of extreme respect for the state courts, he could wait and see what happens during the emergency hearing at the Kansas Supreme Court on November 7. He could perhaps even wait for that court to resolve the "rogue administrative order" issue there before deciding – which would add a lot of delay.
I personally hope he hands down a preliminary injunction swiftly (before the 7th) and let the Kansas SC independently make of it what it will.
60.
brandall | November 1, 2014 at 4:14 pm
This article portrays Judge Crabtree differently than in the article by Peter Hancock :
"Fabert tried to persuade Crabtree that the federal court should defer to the state Supreme Court. He cited a 1969 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal district court could not enforce an injunction in a dispute between a railroad company and a labor union while the matter was pending before a Florida state court.
“The Kansas Supreme Court has to be allowed to go forward,” Fabert said, arguing that the federal court lacked jurisdiction. “I would not be surprised if the Kansas Supreme Court has a decision within a day or two (after oral arguments).”
Crabtree did not appear particularly swayed by his argument.
“This is not a labor dispute,” he said. He pointed out that the 10th Circuit had already found that same-sex couples have a “fundamental constitutional right” to marry."
I love that line…."This is not a labor dispute"…..you tell 'em Crabtree.
Read more here: http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/ar…
61.
Zack12 | October 31, 2014 at 7:10 pm
Do these fools really think the 10th circuit will grant them a stay?
62.
Ragavendran | October 31, 2014 at 8:07 pm
I wonder – are the Crabtrees (Kansas judge and Colorado judge) related?
63.
Dr. Z | October 31, 2014 at 8:52 pm
There are a million Crabtrees in that neck of the woods. We must had 25 of them in our little town of 5000.
64.
guitaristbl | November 1, 2014 at 5:05 am
They do not make any sense in Kansas.. :
"“The Kansas Supreme Court has to be allowed to move forward,” Fabert said. “They may address the ultimate constitutional questions.”"
Why ? Why does the state supreme court according to the defendants has more authority on an issue of federal law that the federal district court, bound by a decision of the 10th, in a case that has been denied cert by SCOTUS ? What do they expect ? Their state supreme court to rule against ME ? Let it, who cares ? The district court has to rule based on 10th circ. precedent. And let them appeal to the 10th (without a stay of course), let them even file for initial en banc ! They are the only state in the circuit without equal marriage, granting en banc at this point and reversing sounds frivolous at best.
I hope he issues the injunction and not be intimidated by the imminent hearing in KS SC, because all it has to do and should do is deal with the administrative order to issue licenses by the judge in Jackson county, nothing more.
If he finally issues that injuction we all know how this will play out : They will go to the 10th and ask for a stay, at best the 10th will give them enough time to appeal to SCOTUS, SCOTUS will deny the stay and they will file for initial en banc, going nowhere most likely.
And all that for Brownback to play political games with people's lives…Oh I so hope he is kicked out on Tuesday (P.S. Even the latest fox news poll gives Davis at plus 6 over Brownback..When fox news has the republican incumbent 6 % behind you know its bad…)
65.
jm64tx | November 1, 2014 at 8:53 am
Here's the problem … The Kansas Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue and found the law constitutional. SCOTUS denied cert.
Federal Appellate Court opinions are not binding law in state courts. State Judges (like the one that issued the administrative order) are bound by the ruling of the Kansas Supreme Court. So he had no choice but to deny that order. Instead he went beyond his authority and issued it.
So … until the Kansas Supreme Court takes action, the state judge like the one who issued the admin order is bound by its ruling.
There is nothing the federal district court can do about that. A federal judge has no power over a state judge. Thats why the only court that can overrule a state supreme court is SCOTUS.
66.
guitaristbl | November 1, 2014 at 9:14 am
So ? Once the district court issues the injuction (most probably without a stay or a stay similar to the one the judge in Wyoming implemented), KS SC will lift the order given based on the actions of the Jackson county judge on par with the law in Kansas after the district court ruling.
In the meantime, every other state judge can order the issuance of licenses in accordance to the new law I believe (same thing that happened in PA pretty much where the one clerk in Montgomery county starting issuing licenses before the ban was struck down, stopped by state courts and waited for the state court to lift its order before issuing again licenses after the ban was struck down).
Btw the Kansas supreme court has never ruled on the issue of ME. could not find any case indicating that.
67.
jm64tx | November 1, 2014 at 9:17 am
So .. we're headed for a power clash. Interesting to see where it will end up.
68.
guitaristbl | November 1, 2014 at 9:21 am
Not at all.District court rules, KS SC lifts the order and everything proceeds normally, no matter if they appeal to the 10th or not.
69.
jm64tx | November 1, 2014 at 9:34 am
If the KS SC lifts the order… which they will probably not given that SCOTUS denied cert on the earlier case.
70.
SeattleRobin | November 2, 2014 at 3:48 am
I think you're missing that the two courts are being asked to rule on two different issues. In the state court is the question whether the state district judge had the authority to direct clerks in his jurisdiction to issue marriage licenses. In the federal court is the question of whether the marriage bans are constitutional.
While the end result in each case is concerning marriage licenses, there's no clash because the underlying cases are about different legal questions.
Even if the federal court grants a prelim injunction, the case in the state SCOTUS is still important and needs to be decided, because the opinion will be about judicial authority that can apply in other situations.
The state just appears to be using the state case to delay in the federal case. But whatever the state SCOTUS rules, it won't actually have any effect on the federal case.
Or at least, this is my understanding of the situation.
71.
ragefirewolf | November 2, 2014 at 9:19 am
No, you're right. JM64TX is just repeating himself over and over, hoping that we'll somehow magically forget that he's wrong. Kinda like Republicans.
72.
Ragavendran | November 2, 2014 at 11:03 am
Yes, I have interacted with this person on more than one occasion. They have a hammer (the fact that the only federal court that can bind state courts is the US Supreme Court) and then keep trying to twist every situation where a state court and a federal court are both involved into a nail, so they can use this hammer again and again.
73.
jm64tx | November 2, 2014 at 1:57 pm
Honestly, Raga, thats not the case, and Im sorry if I came across that way.
74.
ragefirewolf | November 2, 2014 at 3:26 pm
You're not sorry. If you were sorry, you'd stop being a jerk.
75.
jm64tx | November 2, 2014 at 1:50 pm
"In the federal court is the question of whether the marriage bans are constitutional. "
And thats my point. The KS Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue of the constitutionality of the state marriage ban, and held the state ban to be constitutional under the FEDERAL constitution.
So where is the justiciable question in federal court? There is already a binding ruling for the entire state of Kansas from the KS Supreme Court. A pet for cert was filed with SCOTUS, and was denied. On what basis therefore, would the federal district court purport to overturn the KS Supreme Court?
76.
guitaristbl | November 2, 2014 at 2:30 pm
It's like hitting your head in a wall with you isn't it ? Lets try again :
The Kansas Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that the ban is constitutional. And the Kansas Supreme Court DOES NOT have a marriage equality case before it now, it has a different question on administrative matters, nothing more.
Gosh..
77.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | November 2, 2014 at 2:41 pm
Jm64tx – Can you please state the facts: What is the name of the case that the Kansas SC ruled on and the writ of certiorari to the SCTOUS was denied regarding the state ban on marriage equality?
78.
StraightDave | November 2, 2014 at 2:50 pm
OK, it sounds like there is a simple factual dispute here, which is the basis of a lot of other silly arguments.
jm64tx: You keep claiming that the KS SC."has already ruled on the issue of the constitutionality of the state marriage ban, and held the state ban to be constitutional under the FEDERAL constitution."
If you can provide a citation to a specific case, I suspect that will change the conversation. Right now everyone is alternately saying "the sky is blue", or "no, the grass is green".
Facts are always helpful. They might not change the end result, but at least we'll all be discussing the same questions.
79.
sfbob | November 2, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Offhand I'd say Robin's response it the most accurate summation and provides the clearest explanation as to why jm64tx is simply wrong. There are two different questions; the KS Supreme Court case is about judicial authority and not about marriage equality. And in any case there is a fundamental matter of application of the Supremacy Clause. The KS Supreme Court CANNOT rule in such a way that it would have precedence of a federal court decision.
80.
hopalongcassidy | November 2, 2014 at 3:22 pm
We are wondering whether you're an idiot..or a liar. Please take a moment to let us know which.
81.
guitaristbl | November 2, 2014 at 3:46 pm
I think he is just a troll..
82.
RobW303 | November 2, 2014 at 8:35 pm
It's my understanding, from the articles I've read, that the Kansas Supreme Court widened the scope from just whether the judge had the authority to issue such an order (unbidden), and intends to also address whether the law is constitutional. In other words, while there are two issues, both will be addressed by the Kansas Supreme Court. Of course, we know how (in)accurate reporters can be, but I can't see that they'd explicitly report that the scope was being widened if it were not so. Has anyone seen the briefs that have been filed? They would surely reflect the scope.
I recall Ragavendran (?) commenting a while ago that, while the top state courts are not bound by federal circuit precedents, if a state does something that violates those precedents, the circuit can intervene in some fashion. Can someone address this aspect with more precise particulars, or have I got the wrong end of CPR's stick?
Pdeant alert: There is no "state SCOTUS" only a "state SC", since SCOTUS stands for Supreme Court of the United States.
Addressing an assertion by jm64tx: It matters not if the Kansas Supreme Court has already decided some case dealing with marriage equality, since it's the state supreme court, and can revisit any issue at any time, revising its previous opinions. As for the case in question, are you thinking of the case denying a same-sex divorce?
83.
SeattleRobin | November 3, 2014 at 12:21 pm
I realized my goof on using the SCOTUS acronym for the state SC, but only after people replied and I couldn't fix it. But thanks for the correction in case I hadn't noticed!
84.
RobW303 | November 3, 2014 at 12:27 pm
And thank you for being gracious enough not to point out that I misspelled "pedant". "Pdeant" must mean "pot and kettle". 😉
85.
Dr. Z | November 1, 2014 at 8:57 am
Apparently now in SC we have our first direct challenge (in the ME context) to the authority of the federal courts to hear cases on domestic relations. This may slow things down in SC since it is a new line of argument not previously introduced at the federal appelate level.
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2014/10/consti…
86.
guitaristbl | November 1, 2014 at 9:07 am
Loving, Griswold etc have settled that issue I think long before the ME issue came up. SC is just trying its last ditch delay tactics at this point. They are bound by 4th circ, precedent, end of story. Childs may pander them and give them hope by dragging things but its the end of the road for them.
87.
Dr. Z | November 1, 2014 at 11:23 am
I am not concerned with the eventual outcome, we are going to win. It's more a matter of whether SC can continue to drag things out. If they simply make the same tired arguments, this won't take long. But if new claims are made by the state, the courts may want to be more cautious.
88.
davepCA | November 1, 2014 at 2:40 pm
If that's their idea of a new legal argument, I don't think there is much to be concerned about. I don't see how such an obviously empty 'argument' could take more than a few minutes for a court to address.
89.
Dr. Z | November 1, 2014 at 4:34 pm
Agreed, the legal argument doesn't stand up. But precisely because it is "new" (in a marriage equality context) my concern is that we'll have to rehash the whole circuit/appelate process and that could potentially take months. It's not a question of whether their argument makes sense. It's a matter of which judges we draw, how informed they are about sexual orientation, and how deferential they are to local public opinion. All of these factors are wild cards. 🙁
90.
sfbob | November 2, 2014 at 3:52 pm
I'm pretty sure I've seen versions of that same argument which usually is framed in terms of a petition for dismissal for want of subject matter jurisdiction. I'm actually a bit surprised that Lyle Denniston gave it any credence at all. There have apparently been cases in which the court ruled that the federal courts didn't have subject matter jurisdiction but those related to divorce, child support and other sorts of judgements that are obviously the territory of the states unless some sort of constitutional question arises. Ability to marry is clearly something that federal courts can opine on; they have done so repeatedly, both before and after the cases which SC and other states have cited were issued. The trimming is a bit different but the underlying argument has long since been disposed of.
91.
RobW303 | November 2, 2014 at 8:45 pm
If they didn't make these arguments in the initial motion to dismiss or when the case was being heard, haven't they waived their right to make such an argument? Otherwise, any case could be continued indefinitely. New arguments can only be introduced if new facts are discovered which could not have been reasonably discovered previously.
92.
Sagesse | November 1, 2014 at 9:56 am
This doesn't sound like a credible challenge. The federal courts don't have jurisdiction over 'pure marriage' matters, but if constitutional rights are implicated, they do. Hard to imagine the Supreme Court didn't have a strong sense of the limits to the powers of federal courts when it denied cert in five cases.
93.
VoxCanaille | November 1, 2014 at 11:43 am
Amazing how an article that supposedly discusses federal jurisdiction over marriage manages to avoid mentioning Loving and Griswold.
94.
brandall | November 1, 2014 at 9:35 am
Louisiana’s Brief of Appellees filed in the 5th yesterday: 68 pages saying everyone else got it wrong with selective citations, now including Puerto Rico, that states have the right to do whatever they want.
And there is no animus, "The fact that Louisiana has always defined marriage in man-woman terms says nothing about the “capabilities” of gays and lesbians to be “citizens.” It is very sad to read that statement based on what we have witnessed was said and done to get these bans voted into state constitutions.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/245156087/14-31037-Stat…
95.
StraightDave | November 1, 2014 at 10:52 am
Everyone else got it wrong? Including SCOTUS, with their denials? That's the argument they're going to end up making to SCOTUS when it gets there, or when they unsuccessfully try to take it there? LOL
Well,coming from the "stupid state" of Bobby Jindal of the "stupid party" (his words), what do you expect.
96.
josejoram | November 1, 2014 at 1:21 pm
Their argument relies fully on the reproductive character of marriage and its function "to bind children to their biological parents". And on rational basis.
97.
davepCA | November 1, 2014 at 2:37 pm
Now they can explain how a law that denies a marriage certificate to same sex couples could have any positive effect on either of those things. Duuuhhh…
They keep overlooking that pesky word "rational". They got nothin'.
98.
hopalongcassidy | November 2, 2014 at 6:27 am
Maybe there's something in the Kansas water that prevents unmarried women from becoming pregnant…?
99.
josejoram | November 1, 2014 at 2:01 pm
And they state that "a majority of states do not have same sex marriage".
100.
davepCA | November 1, 2014 at 2:38 pm
Looks like their ability to count could use some work….
101.
guitaristbl | November 2, 2014 at 5:45 am
So according to Louisiana officials there are at least 65 states in the US since 32 states do not consist a majority. Is Jindal starting an imperialistic campaign towards central America ? lol !
102.
RobW303 | November 2, 2014 at 8:54 pm
Well, Nate Silver predicted we'd win in more states than that. Jindal must've taken that tweet seriously. 🙂
103.
MichaelGrabow | November 3, 2014 at 5:50 am
In Louisiana's brief? What page?
104.
b843 | November 1, 2014 at 5:03 pm
Several people have mentioned the 6th Circuit … based on recent written decisions, 9 to 11 months between argument and decision is not unusual in Cincinnati.
105.
guitaristbl | November 2, 2014 at 5:46 am
The marriage cases are (supposedly) on an expedited schedule, thus a decision is to be handed down earlier than decisions in cases on a normal schedule.
106.
Sagesse | November 2, 2014 at 11:30 am
i've been having trouble posting over the last couple of days, so I hope this works.
I want to encourage the EOT community to get out and vote in next week's election. I live in Canada, so the outcome doesn't directly affect me, but the thought of a Republican takeover of the US Senate is absolutely frightening to anyone who cares about individual rights. Please do your part.
107.
hopalongcassidy | November 2, 2014 at 12:42 pm
I'm crossing my fingers, but I won't be surprised if the Repubs do get a majority in the senate…too many people are fed up with the whole mess, and I'm one of them.
108.
guitaristbl | November 2, 2014 at 1:03 pm
And yet they will vote for the people hugely responsible for this mess. I wonder if a wholly republican controlled congress fails to fix the situation is it still Obama's fault ?
109.
hopalongcassidy | November 2, 2014 at 1:26 pm
Few things are more frustrating…and depressing…than examining the level of plain intellect inside the cranium of most American voters. I shit you not, the vignettes that the late night guys like Leno and Letterman put to video when they go out and ask random people on the street (who presumably do actually have functioning brains) the most absurdly simple and obvious questions that produce utter tripe and nonsense for answers really do seem to prove my theory that way more than half of Americans are below average…even though that seems to be mathematically impossible. Sigh.
110.
JayJonson | November 3, 2014 at 5:50 am
Republicans blame Obama for everything. Rachel Maddow had a wonderful segment on Fox News recently. She played a Faux News pundit blaming Obama for high gas prices in 2010, saying that it would doom the economy; then she played a Faux News pundit a week ago blaming Obama for low gas prices, saying the low gas prices would doom the economy. These people don't report the news, they spin it. Unfortunately, the people who watch Faux News have become so stupid they will swallow anything that confirms their prejudices.
111.
Zack12 | November 2, 2014 at 1:04 pm
The map was NEVER in our favor and the retirements didn't help.
If not for the Republicans nominating flawed candidates in 2010 and 2012, Democrats would have likely already lost control of the upper chamber.
Let's hope we can get as many progressive judges confirmed in the lame duck sessions as possible, because we sure as heck aren't going to get any when the Republicans take over.
112.
guitaristbl | November 2, 2014 at 2:33 pm
I will insist that things are still extremely marginal to pre judge them 100 % in favour of republicans. As for judicial nominations, the main point is SCOTUS and there is no upcoming retirement there anyway so..
113.
SeattleRobin | November 3, 2014 at 12:00 pm
I disagree that the main point is SCOTUS. They only accept around 70-80 cases to hear each year. We've already seen the dramatic effect lower court rulings have had on marriage equality because of seven cases being denied cert. ALL federal court appointments are incredibly important.
114.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | November 2, 2014 at 2:57 pm
It'll be interesting to see if the GOP reverts the Senate rules and puts the filibuster back in for Executive appointments, inclusive of all federal judges (sans Justices).
I agree the map was there this year, and this election is removing a lot of Democratic-held seats in red states that Obama lost. As much as it pains me, the question now is not if the GOP will have the majority, but how many seats above 50.
Ironically, someone at a party I was at this weekend said 2015 might be the best year for Scalia to retire with the GOP controlled Senate, as in 2017 when Hillary is president and the Senate returns to the Democrats, it'll be too late!
115.
Zack12 | November 2, 2014 at 3:53 pm
Even 54 or 55 seats might not be enough to save the GOP in 2016.
There are more then enough Republicans in Blue and Purple states that can be made to pay a price if the crazies get unleashed.
116.
guitaristbl | November 2, 2014 at 4:07 pm
So you believe that dems will take back the senate if they lose it now by 2016 ?
I am not too anxious about the presidency. Dems are well behind Hillary here while the republicans are so divided among different candidates representing radically different sides of the GOP (From Christie to Cruz there is quite a path to traverse politically) and given that the people who vote at primaries are the most radical, I do not expect for a candidate that can win over moderates to emerge..
117.
Zack12 | November 2, 2014 at 4:10 pm
Yes, even if the Republicans win seven to nine seats and get a 53-54 majority.
There are simply too many seats up in Blue/Purple states for the Republicans to not take losses and there is no way the crazies are NOT going to push extreme bills in the next two years.
118.
guitaristbl | November 2, 2014 at 4:18 pm
Well there are people like Collins who can be elected in Blue/Purple states…If someone like Ernst can be elected in Iowa even now (remains to be seen of course..) then anything can happen IMO.
119.
Zack12 | November 2, 2014 at 6:46 pm
Very true, but I would say unlike Iowa, Democrats will have had time to do their homework and make sure they don't nominate a flawed candidate like Bruce Braley.
120.
guitaristbl | November 2, 2014 at 1:02 pm
I am not in the US either and I find it as scary but it seems pretty inevitable at this point I am afraid. Democrats need to win in Colorado, Iowa and possibly even Georgia in order to keep the senate, and that's given that they will hold on their seats in North Carolina and New Hampshire. These will be all very tough seats to win in a mid term election with possibly low democrat turnout.
Some seats like Louisiana will go to a 2nd election in December, but while Landrieu seems to win the first round (due to a republican split though) she consistently trails behind Cassidy in the 2nd round.
Anyway still republicans won't get even close to achieving a fillbuster-proof majority in the senate so that will stop them a bit. Plus with a marginal majority moderates like HRC endorsed Collins and Murkowski may keep them a bit constrained.
The best shot for democrats seems to be in state races, especially governor races. Some, like the ones in Florida and Kansas, may be game changing for ME as well.
Only two days to go. We'll see.
121.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | November 2, 2014 at 3:07 pm
Here in FL it will be a tight race for Governor. I honestly don't know what will happen, although I'm always pessimistic with mid-term elections (i.e. Voter turnout) and whenever a Democrat is in a close race. But Scott is way under 50%, so can hope Crist wins.
I did early voting today, so it was nice to fill in the ovals for Crist (Govenor) and Sheldon (Attorney General). Voted for medical marajuana too, but it won't get the 60% threshold for a state constitutional amendment (but of course bans on same-sex marriage did in 2008).
122.
wkrick | November 2, 2014 at 10:36 pm
Almost all of the people that I know who vote Republican do so for only one reason. Gun rights. This one issue is huge for many otherwise liberal people, especially so in red states and rural areas of purple states. If Democrats would become more "gun friendly", they'd get a hell of a lot more votes and these election races wouldn't be so close.
123.
bayareajohn | November 2, 2014 at 11:36 pm
I'm not crazy about trading lives for representatives. Guns kill more people each month in the USA than Ebola ever will, all century. I understand not everyone agrees. If you don't, I know you're as glad as I am that it's ok for both of us to have an opinion!
124.
hopalongcassidy | November 3, 2014 at 6:18 am
When thugs are breaking down your door to invade your home and murder your family, pulling out a case of Ebola is not going to be much help. As dedicated as I am to the progress of marriage equality, I am every bit as committed to preserving 2nd amendment rights.
125.
MichaelGrabow | November 3, 2014 at 7:28 am
Will they be murdering those families with illegal guns that they were too easily able to obtain?
126.
hopalongcassidy | November 3, 2014 at 9:41 am
I don't know, and neither do you. You can pass a million new laws to infringe on my ability to defend myself and my family but they won't make a fucking bit of difference to criminals…they will laugh at your stupidity as they continue to commit crimes.
127.
MichaelGrabow | November 3, 2014 at 9:50 am
Ok, bye.
128.
bayareajohn | November 3, 2014 at 10:37 am
Yeah, there's no way to know the consequences of such things. Well, other than to look around at places where they have done such things and the consequences are known, of course. Wouldn't want to do that, who wants to be like England?
129.
Eric | November 3, 2014 at 11:02 am
England has a long history of denying gun ownership to "undesirables." Their actions were the basis for the 2nd Amendment.
130.
MichaelGrabow | November 3, 2014 at 6:08 am
What radical laws are these democrats that are "unfriendly" to guns trying to pass?
131.
hopalongcassidy | November 3, 2014 at 6:23 am
Michael, if you don't know there have been hundreds of Dems who have called for essentially banning guns (and thousands more who think that way but won't say it out loud), you obviously aren't educated on the issue. Bloomberg (who has a carry permit himself plus lots of heavily armed bodyguards) is well known to embrace what amounts to complete bans.
132.
JayJonson | November 3, 2014 at 7:05 am
Republicans believe that asking for an id check at gun shows is a terrible infringement on the second amendment, but think nothing about enacting id laws designed to prevent Democrat-leaning voters from voting.
More people in the U.S. are killed by gun violence than any other advanced country in the world.
133.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | November 3, 2014 at 7:48 am
It is outright pathetic what is required to buy a gun and what is being listed as "prudent" measures to ensure no voter fraud will occur (which is a made up fantasy of the GOP). Hey, I abide by the SCOTUS rulings, and if they say there is a 2nd Amendment right for every citizen to own a gun, not much I can say about that (just as hard-core conservatives can't say shit about my marriage now being recognized by the federal government). But there is NO REASON whatsoever that common sense laws about how someone goes about purchasing a gun can't be put in place. Background checks whether you buy it at a gun show, online, whatever, should be absolutely mandatory. And get the damn military grade assault weapons off the street. And I don't want to take away your sporting rifles (I'm from Michigan, I enjoy my deer cutlets, too) or what you do to protect your home (although don't abuse with with laws like we have in FL to "Stand your Ground" and go attack people).
134.
MichaelGrabow | November 3, 2014 at 7:55 am
Nailed
it
on
the
head
135.
hopalongcassidy | November 3, 2014 at 8:26 am
Ignorance about guns is widespread. So-called "assault weapons" are far less powerful than most non-scary-looking hunting rifles. There are no assault weapons "on the street" except the ones carried around by cops. When I was in school, we had a gun CLUB and an indoor range…it was not unusual to see students carrying their guns into the school for meetings, practice, or instruction. Nobody ever got shot or even threatened. This was a large upper middle class school in a medium sized city…in the 1960s. Something has changed, but not the hardware.
136.
wkrick | November 3, 2014 at 8:31 am
Exactly. The misinformation about guns is the equivalent of "gay marriage will lead to child rape and sex with animals". It's just political bullshit designed to polarize voters.
137.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | November 3, 2014 at 8:50 am
Like I said above, I believe in our countries system of checks and balances, and if SCOTUS says you can carry a gun, you can carry a gun. Just seems like "FEAR" again gets used to scare the ignorant amongst us into believing that some common sense policies around registration and background checks is going take all the guns away.
I recognize the fact that we'll never be a gun free society given we're too far down the road, and taking guns away from law abiding citizens puts them in danger against criminals who have them. So I accept our murder/homicide rate is going to be what it is, guns ablazing, and people standing their ground. And the mass shootings at schools will continue, and we'll remain numb to it all, with the suggestions we should just arm our teachers and have armed guards at the schools.
BUT…why can't we just have background checks for people who want to buy a gun? I get more scrutiny in my consulting job at a client site with a background check and drug test than someone off the street that goes into a gun show and wants to buy a constitutionally allowed piece of merchandize, with no checks against the person's background. Just doesn't seem to add up.
138.
MichaelGrabow | November 3, 2014 at 9:32 am
I would really love to hear a genuine repose to that question.
139.
hopalongcassidy | November 3, 2014 at 9:35 am
Background checks are worthless when anyone can buy a gun on the street. Law abiding citizens should not have to jump through hoops that do not exist for criminals and thugs. That is not political rhetoric, it's just simple truth. If I could wave a magic wand and "uninvent" guns, I would do it in a NY minute but the real world does not operate to suit my preferences. Do you seriously believe that allowing teachers to be armed would exacerbate the (virtually nonexistent) problem of school shootings? The old canard "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away" might be a bit shopworn but it sure is hell is accurate.
140.
MichaelGrabow | November 3, 2014 at 9:50 am
Law abiding citizens should not have to jump through hoops that do not exist for criminals and thugs.
You are hurting my brain.
141.
hopalongcassidy | November 3, 2014 at 10:56 am
Take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning.
142.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | November 3, 2014 at 10:24 am
So let me get this straight: We should eliminate any background checks for guns whatsoever and allow anyone to buy one at all?
And yes, I honestly do think arming teachers would be one of the worst decisions we could ever make in our public schools. I'd rather find sensible ways to try and keep guns out of the hands who shouldn't have them than to just arm more and more people and see all of the "accidents" that occur out of that logic.
143.
hopalongcassidy | November 3, 2014 at 10:55 am
Fine. While you're at it, pass a law against cancer.
jesusfuckingchrist, some people…
144.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | November 3, 2014 at 11:05 am
That would be a very difficult thing to do, since I can't ask cancer to sign-up before entering someone's body, like we can do for background checks.
I didn't mean to elicit a jesusfuckinghchristmotherofmary out of you, I honestly wanted to know if you though we should get rid of all background checks altogether. Civil debate, that's all. You don't live in Florida, do you?
I guess this is what happens when there is no marriage quality news to speak about!
145.
bayareajohn | November 3, 2014 at 11:10 am
Note that the only ones in this conversation who are being abusive are the ones WITH guns. I feel safer already.
146.
BenG1980 | November 3, 2014 at 11:23 am
Abusive? Seems a bit hyperbolic to me. Besides, I thought this was an LGBT equality website. The entire conversation seems out of place here. lol
147.
Eric | November 3, 2014 at 12:23 pm
If I'm being abusive, please provide me with an example.
148.
bayareajohn | November 3, 2014 at 12:54 pm
You aren't the only one here. It's not all about you.
But perhaps you've been called (or called others, or applauded others calling others) a pearl-clutching arrogant ignorant bastard enough that you don't find it abusive. Jesusfuckingchristmotherofmary.
Oh Yeah, it does have a nice complimentary ring to it now that -I- say it…
149.
Eric | November 3, 2014 at 1:08 pm
Ah, so your general comment about being abusive was hyperbole. Thank you for the clarification.
150.
bayareajohn | November 3, 2014 at 1:18 pm
Not hyperbole.
A: The only pigs who fight are the freckled ones.
B: This pig is freckled.
Conclusions:
WRONG: This pig will fight.
RIGHT: Some Pigs that look like this one do fight.
Logic. Part of Science. Enjoy.
151.
Eric | November 3, 2014 at 1:39 pm
your logic example doesn't fit the scenario. If there are only two pigs, your conclusion is incorrect.
You asserted that multiple people were being abusive and that only those opposed to your position are being abusive.
Rather get get off on imprecise analogy tangents, why don't you simply indicate the multiple abusive parties?
Is pearl-clutcher any less abusive than calling someone a gun nut?
152.
bayareajohn | November 3, 2014 at 1:45 pm
I have to agree with you. "Pearl-clutcher" is at least as abusive as "gun nut".
153.
Eric | November 3, 2014 at 11:10 am
Ryan, background checks are required in most states and for most gun transfers. California and Illinois, for example, have both required background checks for ALL gun transfers for decades. Background checks are opposed, because they are not instantaneous and the subjective criteria leads to the denial of an enumerated right without substantive due process. For instance, background checks were used to deny guns to gays and are still used in some juridictions to deny guns to transpersons.
154.
hopalongcassidy | November 3, 2014 at 9:42 am
And as usual, we get down votes from pearl clutchers who operate from a position of arrogant ignorance. Bastards.
155.
Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL) | November 3, 2014 at 11:09 am
I just up-voted you! I'm trying to stay out of the arrogant ignorance club. Although I give you, I am ignorant on the use of a gun, but I don't think I'm being arrogant.
Pearl clutters. Ha ha, I like your use of that one!
156.
Eric | November 3, 2014 at 11:12 am
So why not make this a teachable moment and educate them, rather than insult them?
157.
bayareajohn | November 3, 2014 at 10:39 am
And yet it is fatal for a black man to pick up a BB gun in a toy store. Perhaps he was an arrogant ignorant bastard, an animal who should be put down.
158.
hopalongcassidy | November 3, 2014 at 10:54 am
bullshit
159.
Eric | November 3, 2014 at 8:05 am
There is little difference between the two groups, both want to restrict enumerated rights.
160.
StraightDave | November 3, 2014 at 9:11 am
The big difference is the rational reasons for doing so, or lack thereof. Not all restrictions are unconstitutional.
161.
Eric | November 3, 2014 at 11:13 am
Well, fortunately, when it comes to enumerated rights, the standard to restrict the right is strict scrutiny, not rational basis.
162.
MichaelGrabow | November 3, 2014 at 7:30 am
I did not claim to be well versed on the topic, hence the question mark at the end of my comment. I guess I should have asked specifically about reasonable laws that have any chance of passing whatsoever. We could all cite folks who have attempted to pass absolutely ludicrous things.
163.
Eric | November 3, 2014 at 8:07 am
Gun ownership is an enumerated right. "Reasonable" restrictions on enumerated rights is highly subjective.
164.
StraightDave | November 3, 2014 at 1:32 pm
Most of life is subjective. That's why we have legislatures and courts who are charged with finding that balance. It's not a reason to throw all restrictions out the window, wholesale. I hope you're not arguing for no government, no rules, New Hampshire or die.
165.
Eric | November 3, 2014 at 4:59 pm
In no way am I arguing for no government. My point is that, as with any enumerated right, a "reasonable restriction" must further a compelling governmental interest, be narrowly tailored, and be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
166.
Waxr | November 3, 2014 at 6:04 pm
The 2nd Amendment has always puzzled me. What does "A well regulated Militia," have to do with people keeping handguns in their homes?
The 2nd Amendment is grammatically incorrect.
167.
OctaA | November 3, 2014 at 11:10 am
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOKWcH1zBl…
The Daily Show pretty much sums up my view on the subject.
168.
sfbob | November 2, 2014 at 3:46 pm
I've been having problems posting too. I sent an email; haven't heard anything back yet. It's something I've run into before. I am assuming it's on their end and for the moment it seems to be fixed.
169.
Sagesse | November 2, 2014 at 4:29 pm
Yes, it seems to have resolved itself for me as well.
170.
RnL2008 | November 2, 2014 at 5:30 pm
Yes, I see the problem has been attended to….can finally respond again:-)
171.
F_Young | November 3, 2014 at 6:37 am
Off topic: Ukraine’s LGBT Community On Edge After Film Screenings Attacked
http://www.buzzfeed.com/susiearmitage/ukraines-lg…
172.
ragefirewolf | November 3, 2014 at 7:37 am
If a Kansas ruling were to come through today, what time would it be?
173.
guitaristbl | November 3, 2014 at 7:52 am
I doubt we will have much action in the judicial field today and tomorrow tbh.
174.
ragefirewolf | November 3, 2014 at 8:26 am
Yeah, you're probably right…
175.
ragefirewolf | November 3, 2014 at 12:03 pm
People must be getting very bored to be debating gun rights here, just sayin'.
176.
Eric | November 3, 2014 at 12:19 pm
One person's boredom is another person's liberty.
177.
ragefirewolf | November 3, 2014 at 12:26 pm
You are definitely at liberty to be bored, lol
178.
RnL2008 | November 4, 2014 at 2:35 am
My thoughts exactly……we could discuss the upcoming holidays……my wish for Christmas is that the 6th will FINALLY post their ruling in our favor and that Montana, Kansas and South Carolina will FINALLY get a brain and stop making STUPID comments like they believe they will prevail on appeal to the 4th……and that boat has ALREADY sailed!!!
179.
RLsfba | November 3, 2014 at 12:56 pm
My 2 cents on the gun issue. Intensive background checks and required training to buy a gun. My brother worked at Brackenridge Medical Center in Austin as an ER nurse. He was gunned down, shot in the back, on shift by a gun with a nut or a nut with a gun who had been released from a TX prison. Stuff like that ruins families. I've got my reasons for not liking TX.
180.
Eric | November 3, 2014 at 1:12 pm
California already requires both.
181.
MichaelGrabow | November 3, 2014 at 2:32 pm
Thank goodness California and the United States of America are the exact same thing then.
182.
Eric | November 3, 2014 at 4:49 pm
I never said they were. The OP's handle indicated that they were in California.
The United States of America already requires background checks for all interstate transfers.
183.
Brain Fuel Plus | November 14, 2014 at 11:34 pm
Hi everyone, it’s my first pay a quick visit at this site,
and post is truly fruitful in favor of me, keep up posting such articles.