|
The Texas case is De Leon v. Perry. Specifically, Cleopatra De Leon v. Rick Perry. That's a pretty great plaintiff name, not gonna lie.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:15 |
|
|
Teddybear posted:The Texas case is De Leon v. Perry. Specifically, Cleopatra De Leon v. Rick Perry. pleaaase let it be the texas case. I just want to see rick perry get beaten down again and again. Anyways, why is this not De Leon v. Texas?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Old Man Mozz posted:pleaaase let it be the texas case. I just want to see rick perry get beaten down again and again. Anyways, why is this not De Leon v. Texas? They're suing folks in their capacity as public officials since they're challenging their enforcement of a given law. Generally you only see X v. State in criminal cases.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Somewhat related, let's say SCOTUS bundles several cases together as it might. How is determined what the actual case name will be for future referencing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:Somewhat related, let's say SCOTUS bundles several cases together as it might. How is determined what the actual case name will be for future referencing? "US Judiciary v the world, Fundamental rights are not up for a vote you fuckers."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
KennyTheFish posted:"US Judiciary v the world, Fundamental rights are not up for a vote you fuckers." Right Side of History v. Scalia, with an amicus filed by Scalia's Windsor dissent?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Ginsburg says SCOTUS might not take a case until they hear a dissenting appeals court ruling. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_JUSTICES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT So the 6th Circuit may be the first to dissent. Probably the 5th as well, since they are pretty conservative (they overturned a district court ruling overturning abortion restrictions in Texas).
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Edie Windsor won in District Court and they still took that case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Edie Windsor won in District Court and they still took that case.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Capt. Sticl posted:Somewhat related, let's say SCOTUS bundles several cases together as it might. How is determined what the actual case name will be for future referencing? It's more or less whatever case gets listed first by the court, and the court-- consciously or no-- enjoys simpler lead case titles. In a lot of notable precedent-setting cases, there were other plaintiffs and defendants and cases bundled in. We all know Brown v. Board of Education, but Gebhart v. Belton isn't exactly rolling off the tongue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
The Virginia House has authorized funds to hire outside counsel to defend the ban since our AG has refused to. At the same time they forced $880M out of the budget and blocked Medicaid expansion. gently caress this state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:The Virginia House has authorized funds to hire outside counsel to defend the ban since our AG has refused to. At the same time they forced $880M out of the budget and blocked Medicaid expansion. getting the gently caress out to Maryland was a highlight of my adult life
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:The Virginia House has authorized funds to hire outside counsel to defend the ban since our AG has refused to. At the same time they forced $880M out of the budget and blocked Medicaid expansion. So they're taking cues from the North Carolina General Assembly I see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Which is why they should use one of the cases from Kentucky. In the case of Love v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court finds in favor of Love. That would be loving amazing. On the one side you have probably the greatest and most powerful forces in human history, cherished and prided by almost all (except robotic spergs like Elizer Yudkowsky but who cares about him), and literally always considered on the side of good. On the other you have loving Kentucky. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
The newest New York Times/CBS poll says opposition to gay marriage in the US is at a historic low of 37%, with 56% in favor
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2014 15:59
|
|
|
Judge Edward Rubin of the 15th Judicial District Court in Louisiana, Lafayette Parish, has just ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:Judge Edward Rubin of the 15th Judicial District Court in Louisiana, Lafayette Parish, has just ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, violating the 14th Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses. Congrats for them! Ohio really will be the last state at this rate. This place really isn't that lovely I promise 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:Congrats for them! I thought PA would be one of the last states (we certainly weren't getting it through legislatively anytime soon), so hang in there. Don't forget Mississippi and Alabama; they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into modern times just like they were with racial equality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
katium posted:I thought PA would be one of the last states (we certainly weren't getting it through legislatively anytime soon), so hang in there. Don't forget Mississippi and Alabama; they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into modern times just like they were with racial equality. It's debatable if the latter has happened. De facto segregated proms still make the news every year from those two states, and occasionally Georgia and the Carolinas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
You're all forgetting The Shittiest State (Texas). We're not gonna see a god drat thing productive until Hell freezes over or Rick Perry goes away, whichever comes first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
TheKennedys posted:You're all forgetting The Shittiest State (Texas). We're not gonna see a god drat thing productive until Hell freezes over or Rick Perry goes away, whichever comes first. Honestly I'm just relieved we're fighting same-sex marriage bans in Texas instead of "it's legal to hunt queers" laws.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:It's debatable if the latter has happened. De facto segregated proms still make the news every year from those two states, and occasionally Georgia and the Carolinas. The Alabama state constitution still banned interracial marriage until 2000. And the vote to finally repeal it passed by only fifty-something percent. Enforceable or not there are going to be states with same-sex marriage bans in 2040.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:The Alabama state constitution still banned interracial marriage until 2000. And the vote to finally repeal it passed by only fifty-something percent. Edit: Interesting quote from a 1999 article about the Alabama law: "CNN posted:State Rep. Phil Crigler said that, although he personally opposes interracial marriages, he will vote for the bill. He said the bill was just racial grandstanding, since the law prohibiting such marriages is not enforced.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Deuce posted:Honestly I'm just relieved we're fighting same-sex marriage bans in Texas instead of "it's legal to hunt queers" laws. The only reason that's the case is because of Texas literally barging into the bedrooms of gay men to arrest them for sodomy in 1998 and getting smacked down by the Supreme Court. It's not like it's because Texas reformed or anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
Sweevo posted:The Alabama state constitution still banned interracial marriage until 2000. And the vote to finally repeal it passed by only fifty-something percent. We have a lot of stupid unenforceable laws. Who cares? You can't fish while on a Camel's back in Idaho. That is really dumb, but it is probably the most charming thing about Idaho. Just to be clear, having a law on the books doesn't make it an enforceable law. If states want to have unenforceable same sex marriage bans in 20 years, who cares? Pohl fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Pohl posted:We have a lot of stupid unenforceable laws. Who cares? You can't fish while on a Camel's back in Idaho. That is really dumb, but it is probably the most charming thing about Idaho. Nobody's dignity or basic human rights are being legislated against with an unenforceable law about Camel-back fishing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Pohl posted:We have a lot of stupid unenforceable laws. Who cares? You can't fish while on a Camel's back in Idaho. Usually these 'stupid laws' aren't specific and the law is something like "you can't use animal assistance while fishing" or the like, and then the 'stupid laws' make an absurd factual situation and point out that it's illegal. Like say, when you hear that there's a law making it illegal to walk a crocodile down the street on a leash seems absurd but it's probably "you can't bring a dangerous undomesticated animal around in public without it being securely restrained" or something that's a common-sense law where you're like of course that should be a law. Pohl posted:Just to be clear, having a law on the books doesn't make it an enforceable law. If states want to have unenforceable same sex marriage bans in 20 years, who cares? Just because a law isn't enforcable doesn't mean you can't use it as a tool of harassment, because it is a pain in the rear end to get arrested and challenge the charges even when the law is flagrantly unconstitutional and has been for decades. A lot of states have anti-vagrancy laws that are flagrantly unconstitutional and everyone knows it, but they'll use them to arrest homeless people and ship them off somewhere, then drop the charges. Hell, even some southern states still have the odd sheriff insisting on trying to enforce anti-sodomy laws. Unenforceable laws should be removed from the books and it is definitely a thing people should care about. That's aside from the fact that legislated bigotry remaining in the legal code is unacceptable even if its unenforceable. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Pohl posted:We have a lot of stupid unenforceable laws. Who cares? You can't fish while on a Camel's back in Idaho. That is really dumb, but it is probably the most charming thing about Idaho. If I walk into a pub and see a sign saying DEATH TO ALL FAGGOTS on the wall, and the bartender explains that the previous landlord put it up and they don't have anything against gay people honestly but they just never got round to taking it down, you know how it is, then I will probably not want to go back to that pub.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Freudian posted:If I walk into a pub and see a sign saying DEATH TO ALL FAGGOTS on the wall, and the bartender explains that the previous landlord put it up and they don't have anything against gay people honestly but they just never got round to taking it down, you know how it is, then I will probably not want to go back to that pub. Even this is too generous, because legislators have attempted to repeal Texas' sodomy law since Lawrence and been blocked by conservatives, when you'd think a "who cares" attitude would lead to a repeal bill passing by unanimous consent so as little time as possible is spent on the issue. So it's more like the bartender going "oh yeah, one of the other owners comes round every year and tries to take it down, so we drop whatever we're doing and restrain him until he stops because we really don't want our signs messed with. Don't read anything into it though, it's not a big deal."
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
They don't want to spend time reenacting it once they secede from the union again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Texas is always searching for new and exciting ways to be lovely to LGBT folk. http://www.texasobserver.org/same-sex-marriage-drivers-license-dps/quote:Texas has both a state statute and a constitutional amendment prohibiting recognition of same-sex marriages from other states. However, Wilson contends she isn’t asking DPS to recognize her marriage, but rather trying to obtain an accurate driver’s license reflecting her legal name according to the state of California and the U.S. government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Freudian posted:If I walk into a pub and see a sign saying DEATH TO ALL FAGGOTS on the wall, and the bartender explains that the previous landlord put it up and they don't have anything against gay people honestly but they just never got round to taking it down, you know how it is, then I will probably not want to go back to that pub. That was a real thing for a while sort of, until they passed a non-discrimination ordinance and marched down and ripped this sign off the wall.  WeHo probably wasn't the best choice of location if they wanted to keep that sign posted. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Sep 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Did heterosexual males not approach "any nice looking lady" way back when? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:That was a real thing for a while sort of, until they passed a non-discrimination ordinance and marched down and ripped this sign off the wall. He's clearly just really jealous of early Soviet jet technology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:He's clearly just really jealous of early Soviet jet technology. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:Texas is always searching for new and exciting ways to be lovely to LGBT folk. http://www.texasobserver.org/same-sex-marriage-drivers-license-dps/ Isn't a name change something a state would have to honour anyway under Full Faith and Credit? It's the very definition of a "judicial proceeding". I'm kinda happy in the UK you can literally change your name by printing something off the internet that contains a few magic words.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Just because a law isn't enforcable doesn't mean you can't use it as a tool of harassment, because it is a pain in the rear end to get arrested and challenge the charges even when the law is flagrantly unconstitutional and has been for decades. A lot of states have anti-vagrancy laws that are flagrantly unconstitutional and everyone knows it, but they'll use them to arrest homeless people and ship them off somewhere, then drop the charges. Hell, even some southern states still have the odd sheriff insisting on trying to enforce anti-sodomy laws. Unenforceable laws should be removed from the books and it is definitely a thing people should care about. As in Baton Rouge last year: The Advocate posted:An undercover East Baton Rouge Parish sheriff’s deputy was staking out Manchac Park about 10 a.m. one day this month when a slow-moving sedan pulling into the parking lot caught his attention. The deputy parked alongside the 65-year-old driver and, after denying being a cop, began a casual conversation that was electronically monitored by a backup team nearby.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
gently caress. Well, I retract my earlier statement. Let's get this poo poo off the books.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
How does that work in civil law anyway? Are they bound by precedent, or is it just the case that in civil law countries you have to go to court every single time you're charged with breaking an unconstitutional statute and convince a new judge to dismiss the case?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 21:15 |
|
|
You could potentially sue for wrongful arrest or bring some other kind of civil rights lawsuit. Might not even be that hard, considering that the sheriff's office's public statements show willfulness. (IANAL)
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2014 16:02
|
|
