Furry1993,The AG office DID ask for a Stay, Judge Shelby DENIED it...
Check out the facts...The 10th circuit also denied the
"Stay", that is why the AG office went directly to SCOTUS.SCOTUS basically told the 10th circuit court they blew it......
@Confused 8:42 a.m. Jan. 15, 2014Chilidog,Did you see that the
federal judge did AFTER his ruling? he issued a "Stay", if Judge Shelby
would have done this, we would not have 1300 plus marriages in limbo.I think this is going to end up in the hands of SCOTUS because there is such a
wide interpretation of the 10th and 14th amendments.-------------------If Utah's attorneys had asked for a stay,
the Judge could have issued it. They didn't. The Judge could only act on
the requests presented before him.
Chilidog,Did you see that the federal judge did AFTER his ruling? he
issued a "Stay", if Judge Shelby would have done this, we would not have
1300 plus marriages in limbo.I think this is going to end up in the
hands of SCOTUS because there is such a wide interpretation of the 10th and 14th
My question is this.... "IF" (and only IF) the 10th circuit court agrees
with Utah and reverses the decision of Judge Shelby... What will Holder do
then?Will the IRS come back on these people and require them to pay
what they should have paid?This is why Holder should have kept out
of it UNTIL a final decision is made by the courts.It has nothing to
do with the Executive Branch standing up for the constitution. but rather
jumping the gun before a final decision is made.
The executive branch cannot ignore the constitution. It is bound by the
constitution.The ignorance from the right wing is just embarrassing.
Another Federal Court has just ruled that Oklahoma's SSM ban is
unconstitutional. time for Utah to quit while it can and save some
"Another one bites the dust"A federal Judge ruled that
Oklahoma's gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. It's
going to be very hard for the Appeals court to ignore the building consensus in
the district courts.
@procuradorfiscal, doubtful. however it will be up to the courts to ultimately
@2 bits, it was. The constitution as written by the founders allowed slavery
and the 3/5 person rule. That was a huge flaw.
Re: "Utah's same-gender marriages were all legally performed, thus the
federal government cannot refuse to recognize them."It remains
to be seen whether Utah's LGBT marriages were legally performed. If the US
Supreme Court upholds Amendment 3, then those marriages, having been performed
in violation of the Utah constitution, which will be given the full effect it
deserves, will all be held to be void.NOT legally performed.
The Executive branch needs to know their Constitutional role... and live within
those constraints.It didn't start with President Obama, many
Presidents have been nudging it more and more down this path in my lifetime...
but Obama with his assumption that the brief Democrat Super-Majority gave him
this right... took it to new heights. Now we just need to take it back a notch
at a time.===President Obama (by his own statement) saw
the Constitution as a "Fundamentally flawed document"... and a
"document of negative liberties... telling the Government what they can NOT
do"... He abhorred that and tried to ignore it and supersede it when it
conflicted with what he thought was best for the country. Bush did the same
thing. Clinton as well (to a lesser degree). And the rest also played their
part in expanding the the power of the Executive branch and making the
Legislative branch almost irrelevant (IMO).
The executive branch administers the law of the United States. Since DOMA was
struck down, the law of the United States does not distinguish between same-sex
and opposite-sex marriages. What was Holder supposed to do? NOT administer
Tyranny is like the Constitution. You only invoke it when you disagree with a
conclusion. Please, no more hyperbole because every citizen should have the same
rights despite of your attitude.
In the DOMA case, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government was
required to recognize all same-gender marriages that were legally performed.
Utah's same-gender marriages were all legally performed, thus the federal
government cannot refuse to recognize them.Also, if President Obama
was actually a tyrant, Limbaugh, Coulter, Beck, Savage, et al would be in
concentration camps. They would not be free to vilify him day after day after
Yeah, the executive enforces the laws like the repeal of DOMA which means that
the federal gov't is to recognize all marriages issued. Remember
Utah's decision to give those couples their licenses even though the rights
given to them would be put on hold with regards to the state? Having those
marriages licenses triggers the national recognition.
Since every single person affected by the Governor's decision is required
to file a Federal Income Tax return within the next 90 days or so, it makes
perfect sense for the Federal Government to tell them how to do it.
If we waited for every law's interpretation before acting, nothing would
ever get done. Congress' skills at of delaying and postponing are at the
Jedi Knight level.
Ah Ranch shows us how many cheer while the president and his minions abuse their
offices. It is not the president's place to push back. It is in the court
and the president is not a party in the case. Once the court decides, then it is
the president's responsibility to execute (executive branch, get it?) and
enforce the laws. It is never the president's role to interpret the law.
That belongs to the SCOTUS.
"We have an executive branch that is all too willing to ignore the
Constitution."--- Says a Utahn who purposely IGNORES the
Constitution's Equal Protection clause."I urge our governor
and attorney general to push back against a federal government that is
increasingly tyrannical."--- And I urge the US President to PUSH
BACK against a state whose residents are "increasingly tyrannical".
Tryannical?You have got to be kidding.Where was this guy for 8
years of Bush/Cheney?!More parroting of the radio.....brahhhk!Polly wanna cracker?
Nonsense. The executive branch has to collect taxes, and has a tax code to guide
it, but still must make decisions involving the interpretation of the relevant
laws. That's all that happened here.