Do we need to worry about our overseas gay marriage because Amy Coney Barett?

[Boiler 45,525]

24 minutes ago, CanadaDude said:

Just because something is following the letter of the law, does not mean it is following the spirit of the law, and also what should be acceptable by an electorate. This was likely one of the fastest confirmations of a SCOTUS judge in recent times, which is foolish on its own as it's a lifetime appointment, but also so close to an election that so crassly flies in the face of democracy that it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

Boiler, being from the UK, you may be aware of a period called purdah, which means that the Government is prohibited from making major policy changes immediately before the election, now the US doesn't have such a process, but it is evidently clear that making substantial changes immediately before an election is totally inappropriate.

I know what Purdah is, I know it is an Indian term and not a feature of Common Law.

 

UK election cycle is 6 weeks and there is Cabinet Office policy not to enact  major changes in this period. So if the US had a similar policy, which it does not, then we are nowhere near 6 weeks from a change.

 

The thing that perhaps amuses me the most is that Obama did try and do the same, now he failed, but if this concept was so ingrained in US practices how come he tried?

 

Now this seems to be a major issue, so I am assuming when Biden wins this will be right at the top of his list, so what are we looking at, no new appointments in the last year?

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Boiler

[Carpe Vinum 2,327]

3 minutes ago, Nat&Amy said:

I agree that Trump is what we got as a result of - among many other things - people thinking their vote didn't matter. Now I can only hope people will show up. In the meantime, we might as well acknowledge that we are living difficult times and that, therefore, LGBTQ fears and concerns should not be disregarded as frivolous. They simply aren't. Same goes to other religious and ethnic groups that are constantly reminded by the current administration there are places where they belong, and America might not be one of them.

I'm not sure why you quoted my post. I made no mention of any of this. I only addressed the importance of winning elections as it pertains to nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices. The most important thing anyone can do right now is vote. I didn't vote in the last election and it was the first time I missed doing so as an adult. Not making the same mistake this time.

[Kai G. Llewellyn 838]

5 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I know what Purdah is, I know it is an Indian term and not a feature of Common Law.

 

UK election cycle is 6 weeks and there is Cabinet Office policy not to enact  major changes in this period. So if the US had a similar policy, which it does not, then we are nowhere near 6 weeks from a change.

 

The thing that perhaps amuses me the most is that Obama did try and do the same, now he failed, but if this concept was so ingrained in US practices how come he tried?

 

Now this seems to be a major issue, so I am suuming when Biden winds this will be right at the top of his list, so what are we looking at, no new appointments in the last year?

 

 

Purdah applies to all levels of Government in the UK, not just at the Westminster Level.

 

Anyways, the *actual* US cycle is really from when the nominee is officially confirmed when you officially have the two (or more) party candidates going head to head. So if the US were to have purdah that'd probably be the starting point. I digress, you're right the US does not have purdah.

 

BUT, we are not talking about what is legal, what the government is allowed to do. As far as I'm concerned there was nothing unconstitutional about ACB's nomination and confirmation, I don't think anyone is disputing that. It is the *principles* of the the matter, is it appropriate?

 

I.e. taking a literal poop on the constitution isn't unconstitutional, but it is wildly inappropriate. This is kinda like that.

Edited October 27, 2020 by CanadaDude

[Boiler 45,525]

8 minutes ago, laylalex said:

It is appropriate, I think. There are multiple facts about Barrett which she did not disclose, which should have been disclosed, and which didn't come to light until after her nomination was voted out of committee. Things like a Supreme Court nomination should be approached with deliberation by what is supposed to be the deliberative body of the legislative branch. But instead we have the artificial deadline of the election here. By all means nominate her, I do not oppose that. I suppose McConnell can play by the rules when he wants to, especially when he essentially has made up the rules. The whole "well, we control the Senate this time so it's different from Garland" was a made up rule. 

 

Elections have consequences and here they are.

So 8 months is OK?, I am not aware of anything that would have changed anyone's view, whatever time line you consider something will always come out later so what should the process be?

[Just Paul 4,595]

Congress can pass a bill and the president can sign it into LAW.   That is what happened to create the gay marriage "ban".   It was actually called Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA. Note that it was written by republicans it was signed into LAW by (Democratic) President Bill Clinton.  Prior to that there was a state compact acknowledging  only hetrosexual marriages.  In re Obergefell it was found that DOMA violated Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.   It is settled law.  Congress is free to pass another bill, which another president (Eek another Democratic president?) can sign into law and a ban of same sex marriage could be the law of the land.   It, of course, would have to NOT violate the constitution or any of the rights.  That is the only way the Supreme Court can hear a case banning same sex marriage.

 

 

[Kai G. Llewellyn 838]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

So 8 months is OK?, I am not aware of anything that would have changed anyone's view, whatever time line you consider something will always come out later so what should the process be?

C'mon dude, you're comparing 8 months to 1 week here.

[Kai G. Llewellyn 838]

6 minutes ago, Paul & Mary said:

Congress can pass a bill and the president can sign it into LAW.   That is what happened to create the gay marriage "ban".   It was actually called Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA. Note that it was written by republicans it was signed into LAW by (Democratic) President Bill Clinton.  Prior to that there was a state compact acknowledging  only hetrosexual marriages.  In re Obergefell it was found that DOMA violated Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Constitution.   It is settled law.  Congress is free to pass another bill, which another president (Eek another Democratic president?) can sign into law and a ban of same sex marriage could be the law of the land.   It, of course, would have to NOT violate the constitution or any of the rights.  That is the only way the Supreme Court can hear a case banning same sex marriage.

 

 

Question on this. As you say, DOMA was struck down on the basis of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, but if another ruling by SCOTUS was found that it indeed had not, would that re-institute the law, or would Congress be required to pass a new law?

Edited October 27, 2020 by CanadaDude

[Lucky2Lucky 2,526]

3 hours ago, green_rabbit said:

There are plenty of news articles suggesting the possibility. The Advocate is a respected LGBT news site and they have published several, including:

Justices Alito and Thomas call for overturning marriage equality

 

kamala harris: ACB will endanger marriage equality

 

Among others, and other articles in other sources. Hopefully it's not a real concern and it's just an attempt to scare LGBT people into voting, but it's not a crazy fear to have and it is difficult for me to watch when straight people on this site and elsewhere completely disregard the concerns LGBT people have about our rights.

I hear what you are saying and personally do not disregard your thoughts/fears as an LGBTQ person- but I think it's important that rumors get "shut down" before they spread (fear) further. Nothing jumps its way to the Supreme Court quickly and since the OP isn't a US citizen I'm assuming he doesn't know the ways laws work in this country. I hope OP is rest assured he/she won't be affected. 

[Boiler 45,525]

4 minutes ago, CanadaDude said:

C'mon dude, you're comparing 8 months to 1 week here.

And any President will have a list of potential replacements for any senior position, or should have.

[Tacos 69]

Stop listening to the fear mongering, many of my gay friends are Trump supporters and they’re not concerned about ACB. 

[SalishSea 17,835]

48 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Rammed? Not sure that is appropriate and this was one thing I do not understand why there is an issue, she was nominated and voted on so what is the problem.

It was completely political, and incongruent with a very similar situation in 2016.

[Lucky2Lucky 2,526]

24 minutes ago, laylalex said:

It is appropriate, I think. There are multiple facts about Barrett which she did not disclose, which should have been disclosed, and which didn't come to light until after her nomination was voted out of committee. Things like a Supreme Court nomination should be approached with deliberation by what is supposed to be the deliberative body of the legislative branch. But instead we have the artificial deadline of the election here. By all means nominate her, I do not oppose that. I suppose McConnell can play by the rules when he wants to, especially when he essentially has made up the rules. The whole "well, we control the Senate this time so it's different from Garland" was a made up rule. 

 

Elections have consequences and here they are.

This is a bit off topic but I personally like how the Senate is now on vacation until after the election. They got what they wanted-what matters to them- and left ALL the American people hanging without any type of further stimulus plan/deal in place with COVID significantly increasing. Shows how much the "little people" matter, IMO.

[laylalex 7,285]

5 minutes ago, Boiler said:

So 8 months is OK?, I am not aware of anything that would have changed anyone's view, whatever time line you consider something will always come out later so what should the process be?

Yes, I did think 8 months was okay. As far as I know, the Iowa caucuses hadn't even happened by that point. But people have been casting ballots throughout and before the committee hearings. There is a danger, I think, that we end up with a court that represents a very different viewpoint than that of the nation of a whole. I know that laws are laws, but ultimately humans interpret the laws. Humans aren't machines, and no matter how much they can insist they are capable of divorcing their personal philosophies from their legal ones, there is bound to be seepage. What happens if we have a judicial branch that views the law through a lens that is out of focus, that interprets the laws passed by the legislature in a manner that suits their viewpoints? I'm the daughter of a lawyer. I know it's possible to argue very convincingly that red is green, if you can find precedent that appears to support that.

 

Now I am ready to be pleasantly surprised by Barrett. I have been surprised by Gorsuch and sometimes Kavanaugh. I keep an open mind, and Boiler, you know this. I am wary of judicial overreach though, and of minority rule.

[Boiler 45,525]

5 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Yes, I did think 8 months was okay. As far as I know, the Iowa caucuses hadn't even happened by that point. But people have been casting ballots throughout and before the committee hearings. There is a danger, I think, that we end up with a court that represents a very different viewpoint than that of the nation of a whole. I know that laws are laws, but ultimately humans interpret the laws. Humans aren't machines, and no matter how much they can insist they are capable of divorcing their personal philosophies from their legal ones, there is bound to be seepage. What happens if we have a judicial branch that views the law through a lens that is out of focus, that interprets the laws passed by the legislature in a manner that suits their viewpoints? I'm the daughter of a lawyer. I know it's possible to argue very convincingly that red is green, if you can find precedent that appears to support that.

 

Now I am ready to be pleasantly surprised by Barrett. I have been surprised by Gorsuch and sometimes Kavanaugh. I keep an open mind, and Boiler, you know this. I am wary of judicial overreach though, and of minority rule.

What is the viewpoint of the nation as a whole?

 

Judges tend to be elderly, should they represent the age spread of the nation as a whole?

[laylalex 7,285]

10 minutes ago, Boiler said:

What is the viewpoint of the nation as a whole?

 

Judges tend to be elderly, should they represent the age spread of the nation as a whole?

Only 3 of the justices are 70 or older. 

 

Viewpoints as a whole are as varied as the topics on which they're based, so I won't be drawn into that discussion.  I want to be clear I'm not calling for mob rule here, but think about where popular sentiment did not match the law of the land. Obergefell is one of those cases, and Roberts did what he needed to do to make it work. Roe was another one. Same sex marriage and abortion are generally "popular" in this country and that they exist as the law in every state are, I think, a mark of us as a first world country led not by certain religions but by equality of outcomes for us all. Or what should be equality of outcomes (abortion definitely doesn't come out that way, in the way that same sex marriage does).