DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 01:53 PM
Original message |
|
I think Anthony Kennedy will want to be on the right side of history when DOMA eventually makes it to the Supreme Court and provide the crucial fifth vote...
|
madmax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 02:00 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Yes, Full equality for all. nt |
jefferson_dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 02:03 PM
Response to Original message |
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
3. What Cases Are In The Lower Courts? |
|
There has to be a case for the SC to give cert...
|
justiceischeap
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
There's a case in MA about same-sex marriages can't get Fed benefits and therefore that's unconstitutional.
|
polmaven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
Our very own Martha Coakley! She may have lost her Senate bid, but she is a great Attorney General. (Not that I wouldn't much rather have her working for this type of legislation in the Senate.)
|
craigmatic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 02:24 PM
Response to Original message |
5. I doubt it. This lame duck session can't do everything. It's going to take a new presidential |
karynnj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. This is not something legislative, but the Supreme Court declaring the law unconstitutional |
craigmatic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. That's even less likely at least with this court. |
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
karynnj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
15. Right - and your's op is correct that it will rest with Kennedy |
|
It is interesting that Many state's rights advocates (the Republicans ) will be arguing against the right of the state of MA to define marriage.
|
vaberella
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
8. We might have to wait close to 6 years but Obama put this on his plate. |
|
And I think he's gonna come through.
|
zulchzulu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
9. The Supreme Court is outside the lame duck session and future Repig Overlords n/t |
vaberella
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 02:37 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Of course. Obama already said this will be repealed under him. |
|
I'm looking forward to it.
|
justiceischeap
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
12. The only way I see that happening is if he's reelected |
|
and we get control of the House again, otherwise, he won't have much to do with it unless he tells the DOJ not to fight any court cases involving DOMA.
|
vaberella
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
13. Can't do that...DOMA is law. It;s required. |
|
I say we work to give him that all Dem House.
|
DemocratSinceBirth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. Even If DOMA Was Repealed States Could Still Ban Gay Marriages |
|
That's why we need a court decision or an amendment and it will take decades to get the latter.
|
Exilednight
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
17. How many times do we have to put this meme to rest? It's not required for any administration to |
|
defend a law if the sitting president believes the law to be unconstitutional.
If the DoJ under Obama's administration defends challenges to this law, it will be strictly for political reasons.
|
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
20. Because it is true with a few exceptions |
|
Wanting something to be so does not make it so.
|
Exilednight
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
21. If there are exceptions, then there is not always a requiement. n/t |
Unvanguard
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
19. Not a chance of DOMA repeal getting through Congress. |
|
It will be the courts, or it will be a wait of at least a decade--certainly until the next point of unified Democratic control, and maybe not even then (as we've seen these past two years.)
|
agentS
(922 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-19-10 07:11 PM
Response to Original message |
18. If we're going to get this done legislatively, then we'll need the people in place to do it |
|
We're going to need 70 democratic senators and a 70 seat majority in the House, 75% public approval, and a fifth judge on the Supreme Court. And even THEN it will pass by the skin of the teeth.
Guess we better get started...this could take a decade or more.
|
GeorgeGist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Dec-20-10 12:14 AM
Response to Original message |
22. Civil Unions would be more practical. |
|
Until 20 years from now, when principle will out.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 02:12 PM
Response to Original message |