Today in Supreme Court History: April 28, 2015

4/28/2015: Obergefell v. Hodges argued.

Comments

[DaivdBehar]

Yet another denial of reality by the toxic lawyer profession. First, it was lawless judicial review. It overturned a law by Congress. Second, it upgraded what will never be more than a friendship to the privileged status of marriage. Marriage is to promote procreation within a patriarchal family, the only successful arrangement to raise children. Third, it inflicted the horrors of marriage and of divorce on hapless, innocent homosexuals.

Homosexual marriage was not even a homosexual idea. It was a Family lawyer idea, because the business was devastated by their own destruction of marriage. The bastardy rate in blacks is over 70% and over 40% in whites, soon to be higher in the 2020 Census. Homosexuals are intelligent and are not falling for this lawyer trap. Even in jurisdictions with this law for many years, almost none are getting married.

[apedad]

"It overturned a law by Congress."

No.

Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages. The plaintiffs in each case argued that the states' statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act. In all the cases, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and held that the states' bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize marriages performed in other states did not violate the couples' Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process.

(oyez)

[not guilty]

With the Supreme Court ready to jettison stare decisis, how long will Obergefell remain good law?

A federal district court in Ashland, Kentucky has granted summary judgment in a damages action against Kimberly Jean Bailey Wallace Davis McIntyre Davis for her refusal as county clerk to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, with a jury to determine the amount of damages. When that case works its way up to SCOTUS, will it furnish a vehicle to overrule Obergefell?

[Ridgeway]

I am surprised you regard the Davis ruling as legitimate. After all, it was issued by a judge about whom: "On December 10, 2001, representatives of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary testified before the United States Senate Committee of the Judiciary for the ABA's majority opinion that Bunning was unqualified for the position of a Federal District Court Judge due to his age of 35, a lack of complex civil case experience as a federal attorney, and his "middle-of-the-class law school" experience at the University of Kentucky."

[Dan Schiavetta]

So the judge is not legitimate? Wasn’t he confirmed? Isn’t his decision on the record? According to you he lacked qualifications, even though no qualifications for the job are formally required. That means that our idiot ex President was not legitimate either. I’m on board with that!

[Syd Henderson]

And apparently we have to go back to 2001 to make him not legitimate, and 20+ years of service doesn't matter.

[nero]

I'm not a lawyer and I can't tell you how valuable this book is. I love debate and it's nice to be able to read a summary of some of these controversial cases so you can see how most of the public discourse completely misses the arguments made at the court. I'd love to see this stuff be a standard part of a college education in US History, etc.