Well, looky here, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to cram homophobia down everyone's throats. Talk about judicial activism! In a 2-1 decision, the three-judge panel -- with the dissenter writing a most epic dissent, but we'll get to that -- ruled in
Difference between different Circuits isn&#039;t a reason to rehear <em>en banc</em>, that suggests an issue that is more appropriately resolved at the Supreme level. The inconsistency criterion for <em>en banc</em> refers to different panels within the same Circuit setting contradictory precedent, which would leave the District courts in that Circuit without proper direction.
As to the makeup of the Circuit, going by <a href="http:\/\/www.ca6.uscourts.gov\/internet\/court_of_appeals\/courtappeals_judges.htm" target="_blank">commission dates</a> it looks like it&#039;s 2 Carter appointees, 3 Reagan, 3 Bush Sr, 5 Clinton, 8 Dubya, 2 Obama, so yeah, a distinct rightward lean.
This quote from the majority opinion really caught my attention. What they said was that issues decided on by voters should not automatically be tied to constitutional issues, and therefore one shouldn&#039;t expect the court to rule on that aspect of it. But this is <i>exactly</i> one of the things that courts were created to do! Because anything put before voters has to conform to the Constitution. (In fact all laws in the US, whether approved by voters or by a legislative body, have to be consistent with the supreme law of the land.) Thus by creating a referendum on permitting gay marriage and voting on it, the <i>sponsors</i> and <i>voters</i> &quot;constitutionalized&quot; the issue, making it a matter that was eligible for judicial review. What the hell did the majority think <b>laws</b> were?
The majority seems to be saying that it isn&#039;t the role of the court to define society&#039;s concept of the marital bond/relationship. This is a total red herring, because that was not what the suit was about and it wasn&#039;t what the 6th Circuit was tasked with doing. The voters had approved a <b>law</b> that defined that relationship. The matter that was before the court was whether whether that law (and any others like it) was consistent with protections enshrined in the Constitution. &quot;Marriage&quot; is a social institution but it is also a legal status. The court wasn&#039;t tasked with ruling on marriage as a <i>social custom</i> or in defining the marital bond or in deciding on the social recognition and acceptance of such bonds between two individuals of the same gender. What they were asked to decide on was a statute or a clause in a state constitution that imposed a specific restriction on the granting of the <i>legal</i> status of &quot;married.&quot;
The entire majority opinion is rife with such &quot;beside the point&quot; arguments. Since they can no longer come up with any arguments that provide a logical basis for their opposition to it, anti-equality advocates now pepper their cases with utterly irrelevant ones in an effort to derail the discussion and redirect attention away from the legal and constitutional question. They haven&#039;t been too successful with this strategy in most courts, but in this ruling the 6th Circuit bought it.
All of that patronizing BS is completely irrelevant to the matter of the legality and constitutionality of the state bans, which was what the court was being asked to rule on. It shows that the majority was utterly bamboozled by the defendants&#039; efforts to change the subject and derail the discussion.
En banc review is rare and reserved for cases where there is inconsistency within the Circuit or that are exceptionally important.
Remember how the right freaked about the ACA subsidies case being reheard en banc because there was obviously nothing important about a judicial fiat ripping the very heart out of a law the President had made the very centerpiece of his campaign?
The plaintiffs were unlucky to draw a panel with two of Dumbya&#039;s conservatard appointees on it. They&#039;ll probably request <i>en banc</i> review in the Sixth Circuit, and they might very well get it.
&quot;neither should we treat States as abstractions&quot; States are people too, my friend. &quot;heroes in these changes...yarble yarble yarble&quot; Infuckingcredible. It&#039;s not being a hero you insufferable shitheel, It&#039;s Doing Your Fucking Job
Difference between different Circuits isn&#039;t a reason to rehear <em>en banc</em>, that suggests an issue that is more appropriately resolved at the Supreme level. The inconsistency criterion for <em>en banc</em> refers to different panels within the same Circuit setting contradictory precedent, which would leave the District courts in that Circuit without proper direction.
As to the makeup of the Circuit, going by <a href="http:\/\/www.ca6.uscourts.gov\/internet\/court_of_appeals\/courtappeals_judges.htm" target="_blank">commission dates</a> it looks like it&#039;s 2 Carter appointees, 3 Reagan, 3 Bush Sr, 5 Clinton, 8 Dubya, 2 Obama, so yeah, a distinct rightward lean.
Except people.
This quote from the majority opinion really caught my attention. What they said was that issues decided on by voters should not automatically be tied to constitutional issues, and therefore one shouldn&#039;t expect the court to rule on that aspect of it. But this is <i>exactly</i> one of the things that courts were created to do! Because anything put before voters has to conform to the Constitution. (In fact all laws in the US, whether approved by voters or by a legislative body, have to be consistent with the supreme law of the land.) Thus by creating a referendum on permitting gay marriage and voting on it, the <i>sponsors</i> and <i>voters</i> &quot;constitutionalized&quot; the issue, making it a matter that was eligible for judicial review. What the hell did the majority think <b>laws</b> were?
The majority seems to be saying that it isn&#039;t the role of the court to define society&#039;s concept of the marital bond/relationship. This is a total red herring, because that was not what the suit was about and it wasn&#039;t what the 6th Circuit was tasked with doing. The voters had approved a <b>law</b> that defined that relationship. The matter that was before the court was whether whether that law (and any others like it) was consistent with protections enshrined in the Constitution. &quot;Marriage&quot; is a social institution but it is also a legal status. The court wasn&#039;t tasked with ruling on marriage as a <i>social custom</i> or in defining the marital bond or in deciding on the social recognition and acceptance of such bonds between two individuals of the same gender. What they were asked to decide on was a statute or a clause in a state constitution that imposed a specific restriction on the granting of the <i>legal</i> status of &quot;married.&quot;
The entire majority opinion is rife with such &quot;beside the point&quot; arguments. Since they can no longer come up with any arguments that provide a logical basis for their opposition to it, anti-equality advocates now pepper their cases with utterly irrelevant ones in an effort to derail the discussion and redirect attention away from the legal and constitutional question. They haven&#039;t been too successful with this strategy in most courts, but in this ruling the 6th Circuit bought it.
All of that patronizing BS is completely irrelevant to the matter of the legality and constitutionality of the state bans, which was what the court was being asked to rule on. It shows that the majority was utterly bamboozled by the defendants&#039; efforts to change the subject and derail the discussion.
En banc review is rare and reserved for cases where there is inconsistency within the Circuit or that are exceptionally important.
Remember how the right freaked about the ACA subsidies case being reheard en banc because there was obviously nothing important about a judicial fiat ripping the very heart out of a law the President had made the very centerpiece of his campaign?
We need <a href="https:\/\/pbs.twimg.com\/media\/B0f_TeOIcAAfo8E.jpg:large" target="_blank">this</a> to make sense of it.
FOX P2 has no neanderthal contributions?
Thank you so much for the intro to Betty Bowers, America&#039;s best Christian.
You made me look. Sutton: Ohio State; Cook: U. of Akron. Both confirmed to the 6th Circuit the last time the Senate had a Republican majority.
The plaintiffs were unlucky to draw a panel with two of Dumbya&#039;s conservatard appointees on it. They&#039;ll probably request <i>en banc</i> review in the Sixth Circuit, and they might very well get it.
More like the introductory chapter.
Good thing these judges weren&#039;t around to decide Dred Scott.
Dumbya&#039;s appointees are the gift that keeps on giving.
Hi, Doctor Nick!
&quot;neither should we treat States as abstractions&quot; States are people too, my friend. &quot;heroes in these changes...yarble yarble yarble&quot; Infuckingcredible. It&#039;s not being a hero you insufferable shitheel, It&#039;s Doing Your Fucking Job