Supreme Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell'

Started by jimmy olsen, June 08, 2009, 03:08:19 PM

Previous topic - Next topic
Print
Go Down Pages 1 2
User actions

jimmy olsen

#15
June 08, 2009, 03:32:37 PM
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

Neil

#16
June 08, 2009, 03:35:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2009, 03:24:34 PM
That's like the USSC refusing to rule on Brown vs. Board of Education.
Not at all.  I think that the USSC just doesn't want to set a legal precedent that gays don't actually count as people.
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

ulmont

#17
June 08, 2009, 03:45:44 PM Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 03:51:08 PM by ulmont
Quote from: Martinus on June 08, 2009, 03:24:34 PM
That's like the USSC refusing to rule on Brown vs. Board of Education.

No, it's not.  There were 12 plaintiffs in the case below.  11 out of 12 asked the Supreme Court not to hear this case.

This was not the best vehicle for a challenge to the policy; no facts, and there are better people (Arabic translators) to have bring a more fully-developed case.

See: http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/dadt-scotus-rejection-whats-it-mean/

Faeelin

#18
June 08, 2009, 03:51:30 PM
Eh, I'm not surprised, and have no idea how they were arguing it, but I also haven't read the brief.

The Obama DOJ defending it was a nice touch though.

Barrister

#19
June 08, 2009, 04:00:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 08, 2009, 03:25:44 PM
Point is, it is dismissive - particularly if the issue is actually a serious one. It implies that it isn't really serious.

Assuming that iit works like it does in Canada, it doesn't mean that at all.  The SCC declines to hear cases all the time and it has nothing to do with whether or not the issue is serious, nor with the correctness of the decision below.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Malthus

#20
June 08, 2009, 04:06:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2009, 04:00:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 08, 2009, 03:25:44 PM
Point is, it is dismissive - particularly if the issue is actually a serious one. It implies that it isn't really serious.

Assuming that iit works like it does in Canada, it doesn't mean that at all.  The SCC declines to hear cases all the time and it has nothing to do with whether or not the issue is serious, nor with the correctness of the decision below.

Heh, I'm not referring to the SC decision, by rather why Marty might find the "commence frothing" from Tim provocative.  :lol:

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

Barrister

#21
June 08, 2009, 04:15:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 08, 2009, 04:06:48 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 08, 2009, 04:00:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 08, 2009, 03:25:44 PM
Point is, it is dismissive - particularly if the issue is actually a serious one. It implies that it isn't really serious.

Assuming that iit works like it does in Canada, it doesn't mean that at all.  The SCC declines to hear cases all the time and it has nothing to do with whether or not the issue is serious, nor with the correctness of the decision below.



Heh, I'm not referring to the SC decision, by rather why Marty might find the "commence frothing" from Tim provocative.  :lol:

I see...  :blush:
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2
User actions