Active Users:1097 Time:02/08/2026 11:17:35 AM
I believe we typically use the terms "affirms" or "upholds." Joel Send a noteboard - 19/10/2012 12:23:50 AM
Perhaps it is only semantics, but "adheres" feels like it puts the cart before the horse, while "affirms" maintains the inferior courts status AS inferior to the SCOTUS. Technically none of the terms should apply unless the SCOTUS 1) decides to hear an appeal and 2) affirms the lower courts ruling. It could, of course, rule for the plaintiff on a completely different basis than the lower court(s) did. It seems the latest ruling did just that; a lower court had already ruled for the plaintiff, but Congress wanted to weigh in with an amicus curiae and could not without an appeal, so the DoJ filed one even though it agreed with the previous ruling. The SCOTUS could just as easily refuse to hear an appeal; either way this ruling would stand WITHOUT affirmation as a SCOTUS precedent.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
2nd Circuit rules in favor of Edith Windsor. DOMA unconstitutional. - 18/10/2012 08:37:12 PM 1139 Views
An excellent ruling. Thanks for the post. *NM* - 18/10/2012 08:47:54 PM 340 Views
Oh, and they addressed the First Circuit's argument: - 18/10/2012 08:54:47 PM 915 Views
I always knew that DomA guy was bad news. - 18/10/2012 09:05:13 PM 659 Views
Also, hooray! Let's hope SCOTUS adheres (if you use that term over there). *NM* - 18/10/2012 10:59:14 PM 351 Views
I believe we typically use the terms "affirms" or "upholds." - 19/10/2012 12:23:50 AM 823 Views
As it should be; the DoMA was always a brazen affront to the Equal Protection Clause - 19/10/2012 12:06:13 AM 910 Views
Not really - 19/10/2012 02:16:04 PM 815 Views
Not quite - 19/10/2012 02:56:56 PM 708 Views
Yes, really, for "any CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT." - 19/10/2012 03:12:11 PM 786 Views
joel, please stop - 19/10/2012 05:42:51 PM 766 Views
That's such a stupid, puerile argument. - 19/10/2012 03:47:26 PM 788 Views
Not the best analogy, though I agree with the sentiment. - 19/10/2012 04:10:11 PM 716 Views
Then by the "legal argument" you all propose I should have the "right" to marry a spoon... - 19/10/2012 05:48:32 PM 741 Views
if your spoon or dog is capable of making power of attorney decisions then by all means do so *NM* - 19/10/2012 06:41:43 PM 337 Views
How about I "marry" a corporation then. THAT is how stupid the entire arguement is. *NM* - 19/10/2012 07:25:13 PM 337 Views
Another good example of how corporations aren't the same as people. *NM* - 19/10/2012 10:07:32 PM 341 Views
Would you be the bride? Would you wear white? - 20/10/2012 07:58:52 PM 706 Views
You have obviously not read my posts very carefully - 22/10/2012 04:23:22 PM 668 Views
Ah, the "I have Gay Friends" argument. - 22/10/2012 09:33:41 PM 694 Views
It was only a matter of time. - 19/10/2012 02:49:21 PM 745 Views
I do not understand why fundamentalists demand government dictate religion. - 19/10/2012 03:22:54 PM 910 Views
Which is why the entire method of legal attack being mounted is dumb. - 19/10/2012 05:53:12 PM 818 Views
the only ones forcing their beliefs down everyone's throats are people like yourself - 19/10/2012 06:44:57 PM 793 Views
There is no right being denied... - 19/10/2012 07:22:24 PM 747 Views
No? - 19/10/2012 11:34:36 PM 717 Views
Really - 22/10/2012 04:29:38 PM 728 Views
You are making one, huge factual mistake that is screwing up your entire argument: - 20/10/2012 11:00:28 PM 770 Views
Nope I am not - 22/10/2012 04:34:59 PM 702 Views
That is just it: Most US marriage laws are already areligious. - 23/10/2012 05:08:38 PM 729 Views
Yes, the laws are 100% secular... - 23/10/2012 07:01:08 PM 687 Views

Reply to Message