Does marriage equality exist in Texas, or doesn't it?

[Aimless]

Y'AllQaeda at it again:

[LittleFuzzy]

Y'AllQaeda at it again:

That's only a partial, so I can't speak to the whole or the question. There are some aspects cited which I think are being used incorrectly but since I am not actually a lawyer am not entirely sure. My recollection though is that unless the Texas statute in question was one directly challenged in Obergfell, it can technically remain on the books until challenged directly* or repealed/overwritten even if it can't be applied with any legal force (if a state law generally remains on the books albeit invalid and unenforceable until repealed after being struck down directly I can't recall. I don't think that's the case but I could be wrong. And civil disobedience might mean people will keep including it when updating code even if it's not supposed to be there). There are a number of dead-letter laws still in statute books. And regardless of the statute, it's certainly the case that Obergfell doesn't directly enjoin private non-state actors from anything. That's a different topic with its own jurisprudence. Obergfell would have an impact but it would be indirect. The whole thing is typical electioneering grandstanding by the state Rep. though. Paxton is a moral-less cad but his response doesn't have any bearing except for more grandstanding since, again, they're talking about private action so any actions taken and responses to actions taken are going to bypass both of them.

*something that can't happen until/unless someone tries to enforce it. The only common example I can think of is to more quickly spread the precedent from a narrow Circuit Court decision to other states in its jurisdiction

[Hazir]

Funny though to see how in the US there's also a class of politician that thinks jurisdiction is something you only need to subject to if you like what it verdicts are. Of course the situation isn't the same in the EU and the US; where the ECJ is still relatively new and still establishing its primacy, it is a bit worrying that legitimacy of the Supreme Court is questioned in this way.

[Dreadnaught]

This is something of a recent phenomenon. Some say it began in 2000 with Bush v. Gore. Other say it began in 1973 with Roe v. Wade.

[GGT]

Ah, the better question might be..."Are Equal Rights *actually* protected by the US Constitution"? Or can states just do whatever the fuck they want, and get away with it, until it lands on the official SCOTUS docket?

Hi, Fuzzy

[LittleFuzzy]

Ah, the better question might be..."Are Equal Rights *actually* protected by the US Constitution"? Or can states just do whatever the fuck they want, and get away with it, until it lands on the official SCOTUS docket?

Hi, Fuzzy

Quick answer, "no, they can't". Lower courts almost always* bind their decisions to best available precedent and will strike down or injunct against all manner of state actions that runs afoul of it well before something lands on the official SCOTUS docket. They can PASS whatever the fuck they want and that's always been the case, but courts block them from actually implementing it all the time.

*some courts do like to thumb their noses at SCOTUS precedent sometimes though. Like the 9th Circuit Appellate Court, out here in the West.

[GGT]

Quick answer, "no, they can't". Lower courts almost always* bind their decisions to best available precedent and will strike down or injunct against all manner of state actions that runs afoul of it well before something lands on the official SCOTUS docket. They can PASS whatever the fuck they want and that's always been the case, but courts block them from actually implementing it all the time.

*some courts do like to thumb their noses at SCOTUS precedent sometimes though. Like the 9th Circuit Appellate Court, out here in the West.

Then explain how CA's prop 8 became law, and wasn't rejected outright. Procedural disagreements?

https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.p...2919&p=4182204

[LittleFuzzy]

You may recall, SCOTUS received a challenge on that law itself. The Court declined to strike it down. They refused to hear the case at all, claiming there was no party with standing and a justiciable controversy for them to make a ruling on. We can't know exactly what went on inside the Court itself but it appears neither side could hammer out a ruling and get a majority to sign off on it. Most likely because Kennedy couldn't make up his mind on what the law and Constitution required, at that time. When Kennedy did finally make up his mind, in Obergfell (which is after a bunch of Appellate Courts had hammered out different approaches) the resulting decision did have issues. It's one of the things that had me saying he was past his prime as a justice and really should have retired by then. It was not a very clear and coherently reasoned decision, legally/constitutionally speaking (though there was also no good way to rule otherwise after Windsor, which HAD to be resolved even if the resulting decision wasn't the cleanest)