6/26/2013 5:04 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 4:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 4:41:00 PM (view original):

So, if one appellate court doesn't throw out a ruling, it can't be biased?

WTF?

Not necessarily, But it's the only evidence we have one way or another. His decision was reviewed by an appellate court and upheld. If it wasn't legally sound, it would have been overturned.
If constitutionality issues are so clear, then why aren't all questions of constitutionality that go before SCOTUS decided by a 9-0 margin?
6/26/2013 5:10 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 5:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 4:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2013 4:41:00 PM (view original):

So, if one appellate court doesn't throw out a ruling, it can't be biased?

WTF?

Not necessarily, But it's the only evidence we have one way or another. His decision was reviewed by an appellate court and upheld. If it wasn't legally sound, it would have been overturned.
If constitutionality issues are so clear, then why aren't all questions of constitutionality that go before SCOTUS decided by a 9-0 margin?
I'm not arguing that they are clear.
6/26/2013 5:12 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 5:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/26/2013 4:30:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 4:11:00 PM (view original):
From a  legal standpoint, no.

If a "legal" appeal took place now, it could be decided by a different judge who could vacate Walker's decision with a different conclusion.

Keep in mind, Walker's decision, that a ban on SSM violated the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution, runs contrary to Baker v. Nelson, in that SCOTUS dismissed an appeal on exactly that grounds "for want of a substantial federal question".

Nothing that happened today puts a dent in the validity of Baker v. Nelson.
And, as you've pointed out multiple times, you aren't qualified to give an opinion on whether or not something is constitutional.
I'm not giving an opinion on whether anything is Constitutional.

I'm pointing out what SCOTUS has said about Constitutionality of SSM.  It's their opinion.
It's your opinion that Walkers ruling runs contrary to Baker.
6/26/2013 5:15 PM
Yes.  That's not an interpretation of constitutionality.

Do you think that Walker's ruling can coexist with Baker v Nelson?
6/26/2013 5:18 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 5:15:00 PM (view original):
Yes.  That's not an interpretation of constitutionality.

Do you think that Walker's ruling can coexist with Baker v Nelson?
I don't know, I've never read Baker. And I doubt you've read the entire thing either. Considering that you didn't want to give an opinion on the relatively short 10th amendment because you aren't qualified, I can't see how you could consider yourself qualified to compare to decisions that may or may not run contrary to each other.
6/26/2013 5:51 PM
I read a synopsis of Baker, which said that the case was dismissed because SCOTUS said it was not a federal issue, and therefore the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment did not apply.  Which is clearly is contradictory to Walker.  Even a fifth grader should be able to understand that.

Apparently, I know more about it that you do.
6/26/2013 5:56 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 5:51:00 PM (view original):
I read a synopsis of Baker, which said that the case was dismissed because SCOTUS said it was not a federal issue, and therefore the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment did not apply.  Which is clearly is contradictory to Walker.  Even a fifth grader should be able to understand that.

Apparently, I know more about it that you do.
I think Walker may have addressed Baker in a pre-trial motion for summary judgement.

So, apparently, either you're dumber than a fifth grader or it isn't as cut and dry as you are making it out to be.
6/26/2013 6:12 PM (edited)
Anything Walker may have said or done is certainly tainted by his appearance of a conflict of interest.  We already had this discussion.

Are you now asserting that it's appropriate for a lower court to overrule SCOTUS?
6/26/2013 6:12 PM
In other words, is it "Backwards Day"?
6/26/2013 6:15 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 6:12:00 PM (view original):
Anything Walker may have said or done is certainly tainted by his appearance of a conflict of interest.  We already had this discussion.

Are you now asserting that it's appropriate for a lower court to overrule SCOTUS?
Nope, I'm saying that neither of us is qualified to determine whether or not Baker was binding over Perry. Walker addressed the argument and ruled that it wasn't.

Also, neither one of us can say with any confidence that Walker was biased and unable to put aside his personal feelings.

But we do know that a federal appellate court reviewed his decision and didnt overturn it, based on Baker or anything else.

Apparently you know more about Constitutional law than both a District Court judge and a panel of Federal Judges. Yet you still don't consider yourself qualified to give an opinion on the constitutionality of DOMA.
6/26/2013 7:21 PM
I don't know anything about Constitutional law.  That much is true.

I do know that judges are not infallible.  If they were, then lower courts would never have their rulings appealed and occasionally overturned by higher courts.  

How do YOU account for that, i.e. when a higher court overturns a ruling made by a lower court on a constitutional issue?
6/26/2013 7:27 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 7:21:00 PM (view original):
I don't know anything about Constitutional law.  That much is true.

I do know that judges are not infallible.  If they were, then lower courts would never have their rulings appealed and occasionally overturned by higher courts.  

How do YOU account for that, i.e. when a higher court overturns a ruling made by a lower court on a constitutional issue?
That the judge was wrong. Was Walker's decision overturned by the appellate court?
6/26/2013 7:35 PM
Legally, no.

It has not gone through a legal appeal.
6/26/2013 7:42 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/26/2013 7:37:00 PM (view original):
Legally, no.

It has not gone through a legal appeal.
It actually did. The appeal was tossed a year later because the people bringing the appeal didnt have legal standing.

The decision was still reviewed by an appellate court.
6/26/2013 7:44 PM
I don't know why we're still arguing about this. DOMA is unconstitutional and prop 8 has been thrown out.

It's just a matter of time before the rest of the states allow gay marriage.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.