Login required to started new threads
Login required to post replies
of the NY and MA Supreme Courts regarding gay marriage?
One forces the legislature into action and the other says the issue is solely the responsibility of the legislature. In other words, one court rules that laws prohibiting gay marriage are invalid and the other court rules that they have no grounds to overturn the law.
Is this a difference in state constitutions or is it another instance of justices allowing their personal opinions to override what should be a strictly legal opinion?
Last edited by:
Tyrius: Jul 6, 06 10:18
Legal opinions are just that. In just about every case, at the State or Fderal Supreme Court level, you have have justices with very different interpretations of the law. It's not really that surprising.
_______________________________________________
So differing interpretations of the same facts results in one set of justices saying the color is black and the other saying the color is white?
I'm not saying that it is surprising, just that truly don't understand why it occurs. Given equal facts shouldn't the justices opinion be at least similar? I mean we're talking about complete and total contradiction here.
Given equal facts shouldn't the justices opinion be at least similar? I mean we're talking about complete and total contradiction here.
I haven't compared the opinions, but have you ever read dissenting opinions in Supreme Court cases? Same facts can result in the same types of diametrically opposed opinions.
In this case, the majority in one court found the issue to be violative of the Constitution. The other did not go as far, instead saying that it was within the purview of the legislature to prohibit gay marriages. I bet that if you read dissenting opinions from both courts, they'd look similar to the other court's majority opinions.
-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins
I haven't compared the opinions, but have you ever read dissenting opinions in Supreme Court cases? Same facts can result in the same types of diametrically opposed opinions.
Same issue here. I just used the example from the NY decision today because the article I read stated the MA allowed gay marriage and it piqued my interest.
It's too bad that personal feelings seem to get in the way of the rule of law.
It's too bad that personal feelings seem to get in the way of the rule of law.
which is why the majority in Congress/White House always screams "look at the credentials!" when appointing a SC Justice, and the minority party screams "look at the ideology!"
_______________________________________________
Last edited by:
jhc: Jul 6, 06 16:06