Subscribe via RSS Feed

DOMA Ruled Unconstitutional in Federal Court

[ 24 ] February 22, 2012 | Scott Lemieux

A good first step, anyway. More when I have a chance to read the opinion, although we can be confident that the George W. Bush appointee Jeffrey White is some sort of free-thinking anarchist.

Comments (24)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Hogan says:
    February 22, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Golinski, represented by Lambda Legal, “was denied spousal health benefits by her employer, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.”

    Oh man. This is going to be more fun than people should be allowed to have.

    Reply
  2. SamR says:
    February 22, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    An a free-thinking anarchist totalitarian who supports an atheist Caliphate under sharia law, if you can believe it. Dastardly.

    Reply
  3. cpinva says:
    February 22, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    always be suspicious of guys who keep their house/lawn tidy, and dress/groom neatly!

    An a free-thinking anarchist totalitarian who supports an atheist Caliphate under sharia law, if you can believe it. Dastardly.

    i’m not surprised, i thought it was bogus when clinton signed it. what still surprises me is why he ever signed it to begin with. he knew it would never survive judicial scrutiny, and has recently admitted as much. it also surprises me that it took this long for it to be challenged. i thought for sure it would be litigated before clinton left office.

    Reply
    • Holden Pattern says:
      February 22, 2012 at 5:52 pm

      Much as we might mock the wingnutterati howls about Dem weakness and appeasement of foreign dictators, they are only generalizing from the evidence presented to them in domestic affairs.

      Reply
    • David Kaib says:
      February 22, 2012 at 8:57 pm

      It fits a larger pattern of taking conservative positions in the misguided belief it would make it easier to pursue other elements of the Democratic agenda. That is the essence of neoliberal politics.

      Reply
    • LKS says:
      February 22, 2012 at 11:27 pm

      what still surprises me is why he ever signed it to begin with. he knew it would never survive judicial scrutiny,

      Uh, that’s why he signed it. It’s why a lot of politicians who know better vote for shit like the Virginia State Mandated Rape Law – they assume the courts will throw it out, so they think there’s no downside to climbing aboard this crap.

      Reply
    • Chuchundra says:
      February 23, 2012 at 12:03 pm

      There was some concern at the time that if DOMA was vetoed, there was the possibility of a constitutional amendment. So DOMA constituted kicking the can down the road a bit until the mood of the country evolved a bit.

      It’s a weaselly justification, but I can’t say there wasn’t some truth to it.

      Reply
  4. MAJeff says:
    February 22, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    I doubt this aspect of the decision will survive appeal (esp if it goes to SCOTUS), but Judge White used heightened scrutiny.

    Reply
    • efgoldman says:
      February 22, 2012 at 8:24 pm

      Also too, that sumbitch can write. The text quoted in the link is the very example of clarity.

      Reply
      • Bill says:
        February 22, 2012 at 10:16 pm

        I also enjoyed this bit from footnote 5:

        The analysis of the fundamental right to marry has not depended upon the characteristics of the spouse. The Supreme Court cases addressing the fundamental right to marry do not define the fundamental right in narrow terms. In Loving, the Court defined the fundamental right as the right to marry, not the right to interracial marriage. In Turner, the fundamental right was the right to marry, not the right to inmate marriage. In Zablocki, the fundamental right was the right to marry, not the right of people owing child support to marry.

        Reply
    • rea says:
      February 23, 2012 at 8:36 am

      Well, but all the cases dealing with the right to marry have applied some form of heightened scrutiny (although analysis is confused by Justice Marshall’s attempt to develope and apply an “intermediate scrutiny” (rather than “strict scrutiny”)test in Zablocki).

      Reply
      • MAJeff says:
        February 23, 2012 at 8:49 am

        This decision applies heightened scrutiny to sexual orientation, though, not to the right to marry. That’s probably because the plaintiff was already legally married.

        Reply
  5. San Pedro Laker Fan says:
    February 23, 2012 at 1:48 am

    Further proof that George W. Bush was in fact a Liberal.

    Reply
    • Holden Pattern says:
      February 23, 2012 at 1:53 am

      Ladeez and Gennulmen, Poe’s Law in action.

      Reply
      • Gary Ruppert says:
        February 23, 2012 at 8:49 am

        The fact is, hear in the heartland, we kno that both Bushs were secret Lieberals, while Nobama is an agent of the Kenyan/North Korean government, intent on putting floride in our water, stealing the virtues of our wimmen, and sapping our bodily essnces. Honrable Bob explained it all in his valuble newsletter.

        Reply
    • DrDick says:
      February 23, 2012 at 8:06 am

      Nah, he just accidentally nominated and actual strict constructionist.

      Reply
  6. Tcaalaw says:
    February 23, 2012 at 8:49 am

    we can be confident that the George W. Bush appointee Jeffrey White is some sort of free-thinking anarchist

    I think the accusations will instead be that he is either (a) a closeted homosexual (I’m sure WND and the usual suspects are already digging through his trash cans), or (b) less likely, he caved to the liberal cocktail party crowd, or (c) least likely, that he wants to get a Circuit Court of Appeals appointment and is sucking up to Obama.

    Reply
    • Anderson says:
      February 23, 2012 at 9:21 am

      less likely, he caved to the liberal cocktail party crowd

      I was wondering about this the other day; wingnuts seem convinced that cocktail parties are (1) seductive and (2) liberal.

      I have never found them to be either, tho I do find seductive a Manhattan with a liberal amount of rye.

      Just another data point for the fundamental element of ressentiment in the Republican character.

      Reply
      • Bill Murray says:
        February 23, 2012 at 12:22 pm

        I thought that Megan McArdle’s cocktail parties were the top, the coliseum

        Reply
        • spud says:
          February 23, 2012 at 2:43 pm

          Well the pickups are better at the liberal cocktail parties. Liberals are all for consensual relations with non procreative nookie.

          Conservatives seem to like forcibly sodomizing women, approval of rape, adultery, constant pregnancy, and looking down on relations of anyone who s not clergy. They are just no fun.

          Reply

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

    • Switch to our mobile site