Ashley Wagner decries Russian anti-gay law | Page 16 | Golden Skate

Ashley Wagner decries Russian anti-gay law

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
The Supreme Court decides federal case law... part of the checks and balances system we have in our government. What they've said at the federal level becomes "the law" as far as courts are concerned. You can change all the judges you want, but once precedent is set, it's there for the ages.
 

Bluebonnet

Record Breaker
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
The Supreme Court decides federal case law... part of the checks and balances system we have in our government. What they've said at the federal level becomes "the law" as far as courts are concerned. You can change all the judges you want, but once precedent is set, it's there for the ages.

I didn't mean that a new judge in the same court could easily alter the old judge's order. I meant that the court order is very much depended on who is the judge, who is in that particular position, and what is his view on the matter. Different judge could produce totally different order.
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
supreme courts, though, are more than one judge - especially at the federal level.
 

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
Furthermore, the successful arguments are based primarily on Equal Protection-which is why courts pretty uniformly have struck down anti gay marriage laws and sodomy laws. AFAIR, some politicians in Virginia considered making both heterosexual and homosexual sodomy illegal, which you would need to do to avoid a problem with the Equal Protection clause. The electorate was not interested in this solution. At least this is how I understood what I read about it. I am not either a lawyer or an expert.

In some states, like Vermont, the Equal Protection clause in the State Constitution is even stronger than in the Federal Constitution, one reason why the state court there was either the first or one of the first, to strike down a state marriage law.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
In addition to that, Bluebonnet, the root of all our laws is the Constitution. Our judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, strikes down a law because it violates something set down in the Constitution. This is the principle of judicial review, established (if I recall correctly) in the case Marbury v. Madison early in the nineteenth century. This can be seen in the eventual fate of the Dred Scott decision. In the days when slavery was legal in many states, the Supreme Court itself ruled that Dred Scott could still be considered enslaved even though he had been taken to a free state and then sued for emancipation. After the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Dred Scott decision was no longer constitutional by any interpretation whatsoever.
 

luckyguy

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Sort of but not really. There are indeed states that have sodomy laws on the books, prohibiting various sexual acts (I don't want to go into details here). However, in 2003, the US Supreme Court has found those to be unconstitutional - meaning that from that point on, they are unenforceable, even if they are still technically on the books.
They are unenforceable, but a prosecution and a trial are juridical in these states still possible. Am I right?
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
They are unenforceable, but a prosecution and a trial are juridical in these states still possible. Am I right?

Nope. These are simply archaic laws that haven't been enforced. Why expend the costs of a trial for something that can't be enforced.

Which is why Putin's bashing of American states is a stupid argument because the laws of those states are essentially obsolete whereas these Russian laws have just been implemented and are very real.
 
Top