Butch Femme Planet  

Go Back   Butch Femme Planet > POLITICS, CULTURE, NEWS, MEDIA > Current Affairs/World Issues/Science And History

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 12-13-2012, 10:12 PM   #11
Greyson
Infamous Member

How Do You Identify?:
Transmasculine/Non-Binary
Preferred Pronoun?:
Hy (Pronounced He)
Relationship Status:
Married
 

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 6,589
Thanks: 21,132
Thanked 8,153 Times in 2,006 Posts
Rep Power: 21474858
Greyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST ReputationGreyson Has the BEST Reputation
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyson View Post
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get it that the next step would be to address it in the US Supreme Court after the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals. What I don't understand is the second point that the Supreme Court asked Ms. Jackson to argue. I think this is what the question is. "Does the Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to rule on DOMA because of the agreement with the lower court? This is where it gets fuzzy for me. Am I reading the second point correctly? What agreement was made? Is the court implying that DOMA is restricted to the enforcement and interpretation of the Executive Branch only? The article did say something about the US House of Representatives (Congress) taking up the defense of DOMA in the courts and that would come under this second point question too.

Again, thanks for responding to my post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kittygrrl View Post
It's a great question to ponder..complicated & very interesting..i hope it turns out to be a good thing that the Court is, at least, considering it..but it's hard to believe it can be considering it's a very conservative court..now why would they want to consider it now?..


I just read this piece in the NY Times today. It explains what the Supreme Court is doing in regards to Same Sex Marriage two court cases it will be looking at. I will need to read it again but for a layperson such as myself, it really helps clear up some of the above questions.

I gather that "Standing" is one of the issues to be addressed and there is also some variation of States Rights in relation to Federal Jurisdiction. I hope it may offer some understanding to others here in our community.
__________________________________________________ ___________





Standing and Delivering

December 12, 2012
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

Is it heretical of me, or merely quirky, to find myself nearly as fascinated by the procedural game the Supreme Court is playing in the same-sex marriage cases as I am by the underlying merits of the two appeals the court has agreed to decide?

After all, same-sex marriage is legal in nine states and the District of Columbia, and public opinion on the issue is evolving rapidly in other parts of the country, with or without the blessing of the United States Supreme Court. On the other hand, the procedural minefield the court has laid around these cases may hold implications reaching well beyond the domain of gay rights — for the relationship of states to their citizens and for the balance of power between the president and Congress.



http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...it_ty_20121213
__________________
Sometimes you don't realize your own strength
until you come face to face with your greatest weakness. - Susan Gale
Greyson is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Greyson For This Useful Post:
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:50 PM.


ButchFemmePlanet.com
All information copyright of BFP 2018