I believe we typically use the terms "affirms" or "upholds."
Joel Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 12:23:50 AM
Perhaps it is only semantics, but "adheres" feels like it puts the cart before the horse, while "affirms" maintains the inferior courts status AS inferior to the SCOTUS. Technically none of the terms should apply unless the SCOTUS 1) decides to hear an appeal and 2) affirms the lower courts ruling. It could, of course, rule for the plaintiff on a completely different basis than the lower court(s) did. It seems the latest ruling did just that; a lower court had already ruled for the plaintiff, but Congress wanted to weigh in with an amicus curiae and could not without an appeal, so the DoJ filed one even though it agreed with the previous ruling. The SCOTUS could just as easily refuse to hear an appeal; either way this ruling would stand WITHOUT affirmation as a SCOTUS precedent.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional.
18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM
- 902 Views
Completely unsurprising since the Justice department refuses to defend the law.
18/10/2012 09:05:16 PM
- 522 Views
For a moment there I thought you were saying the Supreme Court had ruled it unconstitutional.
18/10/2012 09:10:16 PM
- 571 Views
Do you know if there's a case about DOMA and the "full faith and credit" clause?
18/10/2012 10:05:11 PM
- 634 Views
I don't know offhand, but my gchat friend will. If she pops on again, I'll ask her. But...
18/10/2012 10:37:09 PM
- 647 Views
I asked her about pending cases taking on Section 2. "None that I know of," she answered. *NM*
19/10/2012 12:46:21 AM
- 228 Views
I wonder about that one as well.
19/10/2012 12:39:54 AM
- 585 Views
Re: I wonder about that one as well.
19/10/2012 01:18:22 AM
- 581 Views
Either a ban discriminates against those affected more than those unaffected, or it does not.
19/10/2012 03:48:32 PM
- 470 Views
Gun control laws can equally affect everyone, though, is my point.
20/10/2012 10:52:41 PM
- 577 Views
I'm sure there is. The California case is likely to discuss it.
19/10/2012 02:48:02 PM
- 628 Views
I just have to note in passing that Ted Olsons memoires will make fascinating reading.
19/10/2012 04:44:15 PM
- 667 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM*
18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM
- 251 Views
I believe we typically use the terms "affirms" or "upholds."
19/10/2012 12:23:50 AM
- 632 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause
19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM
- 715 Views
Not really
19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM
- 638 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon...
19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM
- 548 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM*
19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM
- 257 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM*
19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM
- 248 Views
provide for us a legal reason why marrying a corporation should be recognized by the US gov't
19/10/2012 08:09:08 PM
- 621 Views
The argument above was that there was no jsutification it should not, thus it should be allowed.
19/10/2012 10:57:16 PM
- 628 Views
you are only offering your own emotional take on a legal decision there is no logic in your posts
19/10/2012 11:12:17 PM
- 533 Views
Wrong. I do not have an emotional stake in this, I am simply using logic. *NM*
22/10/2012 03:59:08 PM
- 262 Views
saying you should be able to marry a spoon or corporation is not logical reasoning. try again *NM*
22/10/2012 06:19:29 PM
- 243 Views
EXACTLY, and that was the point I was making. Congratualtions for figuring that out. *NM*
22/10/2012 11:34:46 PM
- 230 Views
you are obviously using some humpty dumpty definition of "logic" then *NM*
22/10/2012 11:40:12 PM
- 243 Views
No, you apparently failed reading comprehension in school.
23/10/2012 03:08:44 PM
- 552 Views
#1: fuck you. #2: you are still not using logic
23/10/2012 05:50:14 PM
- 513 Views
Ah yes, the fuck you argument... the height of all intelectual persuits... and you call ME emotional
23/10/2012 06:47:21 PM
- 589 Views
i see -- it's ok to be insulting as long as the "f-bomb" is not used. got it.
23/10/2012 10:27:54 PM
- 672 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM*
19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM
- 252 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white?
20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM
- 506 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully
22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM
- 481 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument.
22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM
- 502 Views
No, I am not, try reading everything I have written on the subject before jumping to conclusions.
22/10/2012 11:41:05 PM
- 653 Views
It was only a matter of time.
19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM
- 558 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion.
19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM
- 715 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb.
19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM
- 626 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself
19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM
- 597 Views
There is no right being denied...
19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM
- 559 Views
that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
19/10/2012 08:06:54 PM
- 619 Views
Re: that is bullshit and you know it. or, alternatively, you do not understand legality in any way
19/10/2012 11:11:55 PM
- 685 Views
nobody is arguing the legal right to marry, they are arguing about the legal rights marriage gives
19/10/2012 11:37:14 PM
- 513 Views
There are no "marriage rights" NONE, zip, ziltch, nada...
22/10/2012 04:18:15 PM
- 572 Views
why bother settling custody in a divorce then if there are no "marriage rights"?
22/10/2012 06:38:14 PM
- 463 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument:
20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM
- 583 Views