Skip to comments.Supreme Court rejects bid to halt same-sex marriages in California (rejects emergency request)
Posted on 06/30/2013 10:18:15 AM PDT by Innovative
The Supreme Court rejected an emergency request to stop same-sex marriages in California, a lawyer for the gay couples who sued said Sunday.
Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., one of the lawyers who challenged Proposition 8, said that he had just received word from the court Sunday morning that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy denied a request by ProtectMarriage, the sponsors of Proposition 8, to halt the marriages.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Blame McCain! Obama got to appoint two Justices because of McCain’s defeat.
Ironically, Meghan McCain must be thrilled!
I believe the US judiciary is bent on the destruction of our Constitution and SCOTUS is the lowest form of animal life on this planet.
The entire government is a lawless tyranny.
Time to fly the flag upside down.
Something is just inherently wrong with a judicial system that rules against the wishes of a majority of its citizens. It’s simply tyranny by an artificial ruling class. History has shown that such tyranny by the few, leads to rebellion by the many.
I thought the ruling didn’t necessarily overturn Prop 8. So how is this legally allowed?
I thought the whole point of the Supreme’s decision was that states should make their own laws, rendering DOMA unconstitutional. Well, Californians have made their own decision, but that doesn’t count?
False, as stated.
If a majority of your fellow citizens want you shipped off to a re-education camp, and a court rules that it violates your rights, do you REALLY think the majority should prevail?
Fair enough, but let me play devil’s advocate for a second. What if the majority of the citizens suddenly went nuts and decided to pass laws to kill the Jews, or whatever - in other words, a literally murderous tyranny of the majority.
Would you not want the courts to intervene in that case? Or would you be OK with mass murder, sanctioned by popular vote?
I know that’s not the case here, but what I’m saying is that ‘the wishes of a majority’ may not always be enlightened or benevolent in nature.
Like I said, I’m playing devil’s advocate.
Sorry but you want rules applied in a Democracy to be used in our Constitutional Republic.
Remember in OUR system its the Rule of Law that prevails, not Majority Rule.
Now interpretation of that law has definitely become out of whack but just because a supposed majority of people are for or against something does not mean it should be so.
Here's the sequence: (1) federal district court in San Francisco holds Prop. 8 unconstitutional; (2) 9th Circuit stays that decision pending appeal; (3) 9th Circuit affirms the district court, but continues the stay pending appeal to SCOTUS; (4) SCOTUS vacates the 9th Circuit decision on jurisdictional grounds (meaning the district court's decision stands, but the 9th Circuit's decision is not precedent anymore); (5) 9th Circuit vacates its stay, meaning the district court decision is now in effect; (6) California state officials start performing gay marriages; (7) pro-Prop. 8 forces ask SCOTUS to reinstate the 9th Circuit's stay, because the SCOTUS decision technically won't be final for another 20 days or so; (8) SCOTUS (per Justice Kennedy, sitting as emergency motions justice) says no.
Blame McCain twice, once for losing, and once for knowing he would have selected some RINO Whino had he won, and everything would be just as bad at the SC.
So Kennedy makes it official.
There’s no laws, just his opinion.
The law says there’s a 25 day waiting period. The 9th circuit pre-empted that without authority.
Kennedy just agreed.
By what authority?
None. He just made it up.
This is just plain wrong. The voters rights should be protected first and foremost. Libertarian moderate republicans never fought hard enough to protect marriage. And, I know why. This is such a disgrace which goes against God. I think the country is lost now and needs a way back to God. The US Court justices are like those in the Ninth Circuit. This is nothing more than the rulers of long ago. Just repeating history now with Dictator Obama and his servants with the (D) and the (R). Romney would have agreed with amnesty. Need proof. Paul Ryan.
Keep in mind that this is coming from the sodomite side, which lies incessantly. Look to other sources for the truth
Do the people of California at least understand now that it’s foolish for them to vote on propositions unless the Supreme Court has previously determined that their results will be acceptable? Proposition 8 has turned out to be nothing but a colossal waste of time and money.
And, as for Congress, why should it go ahead and blithely pass bills like the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Supremes just invalidated, unless the bills have been pre-determined to be Supreme-Court-proof?
When will Americans and their Congressional representatives face the fact that they’re living in a tyranny in which nine totalitarian judges decide how their lives will be lived and everyone else’s views are irrelevant?
It is FACT.
[[(rejects emergency request)]]
Meanwhile kkkuomo and bllomingbeger- BOTH issue ‘emergency mandates’ for everythigtn from crammign through constitution violating laws to avoiding havign to stay a day logner in order to pass more bills (Yup folks, kkkuomo just passed an ‘emergency measure’ that prevents him and ilk from havign to stay to vote o nsomething- Abuse of power? Oh heck no- these are liberals, they are icnapable of abusing power accordign ot the msm)
What’s your source?
It dismissed the case for lack of Standing. The Fed. Dist. Ct. ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional. THAT ruling is allowed to stand because SCOTUS said none of the Plaintiffs had standing to appeal it.
In short ... Prop 8 is no more.
Actually that’s not quite accurate. There is no law. It is a court procedure. Big difference.
Also, the 9th Circuit was the one that issued the injunction, not SCOTUS. Technically, the 9th Circuit could have lifted it’s injunction at any time, even while the case was being heard. So the timing of when the 9th Circuit decides to lift it’s injunction has nothing to do with the 25 day period to ask for a re-hearing.
And let me be clear yet again. I am NOT siding with the Court’s decision in this matter. Just explaining the Procedure is all.
Is this lawyer the only source? I can't find this at the Supreme Court website.
The argument the gay marriage supporters were making was that it’s not allowed to take away marriage once it was already granted, and the circuit court agreed with this. That’s why it applied to California only and not every state. However, it’s still a devastating blow to traditional marriage supporters. Why? It means every gain the gay marriage supporters make is permanent, whereas every gain we make is (at best) temporary.
Here’s the Associated Press report:
Worthless Courts system, time to forget the Supreme robed thieves and the corrupt Federal Gov. We need to get out of the damn Union!
All news outfits are reporting it from AP to Reuters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.