DOMA Section 3 Ruled Unconstitutional!!!!

[The Dude]

[The Dude]

[John Galt]

[Aaron]

This is brilliant to watch. Somehow I feel it will be even more satisfying watching state's rights re: opposition of gay marriage slowly crumble in lower cases rather than having them blown out all at once. Had that been the case, people would have spent more time moaning about judicial activism and less time getting their skulls beat in by the effective practice of law and the tide of progress.

[John Galt]

[John Galt]

roe they said it was an exception because it was "capable of repetition but evading review", which would not be the case here (unless you want to say that gay marriage never lasts more than a year!). and that doesn't even matter: someone WAS harmed at some point, and people were arguing against various things. that didn't happen here. instead an advisory opinions was basically just handed down. and those are not legal under article 3 of the constitution.

[The Dude]

[John Galt]

yeah but they didn't challenge. when you appeal you challenge. the ruling, had it been actually challenged, was not wrong, but as it is it is terribly wrong. this is to say: i think it's a state issue, like a great many things.

[The Dude]

they appealed and let someone else challenge, which isn't new and has always been allowed. There is no rule that says the appealer must defend. They can allow third parties to argue on its behalf. The injury argument has been proven wrong. you're wrong.

[John Galt]

no, read the first section of scalia's dissent. it makes plain that this hasn't happened before. and 3 other justices agreed with him in that statement. the majority attempts to get around this... but nope. they just made terrible precedent here.

as for your edit, previous discussions were not about this particular case, not really (also irrelevant, by the way). i don't agree with scalia on everything he said, and specifically i am only agreeing with his statements about the standing involving this particular case. the end.