General Discussion

morningfog

(18,115 posts)

43. Yes, that is exactly it. She felt standing had been conferred by the CA supreme court.

Reply to justiceischeap (Reply #16)

Wed Jun 26, 2013, 12:04 PM

Jun 2013

She wanted to rule on the merits.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I wonder why Sotomayor dissented on the Prop 8 case [View all] justiceischeap Jun 2013 OP

she probably wanted a decision on the merits nt geek tragedy Jun 2013 #1

That sounds right to me. closeupready Jun 2013 #3

That is what I think, too. morningfog Jun 2013 #40

That will be interesting to read JustAnotherGen Jun 2013 #2

It wasn't decided on the merits Shrek Jun 2013 #4

Republicans usually favor a more restrictive view on standing. geek tragedy Jun 2013 #7

RIght, thanks. Its Process, elleng Jun 2013 #29

She probably thought they did have standing cthulu2016 Jun 2013 #5

Because the standing argument is fairly strong, legally (nt) Recursion Jun 2013 #6

+1 n/t X_Digger Jun 2013 #13

She has often suggested she is not much in favor of gay people or our rights Bluenorthwest Jun 2013 #8

But she voted in favor of defeating DOMA, didn't she? nt justiceischeap Jun 2013 #9

No, she apparently voted with the pro-8 minority. kestrel91316 Jun 2013 #24

No she did not frazzled Jun 2013 #26

She voted with the majority to overturn the DOMA. n/t PoliticAverse Jun 2013 #28

Those are two different cases KamaAina Jun 2013 #38

She did not vote wrong on Prop 8. morningfog Jun 2013 #42

What if one other justice had voted that way? KamaAina Jun 2013 #46

They heard argument on the merits, they just didn't decide. morningfog Jun 2013 #47

There was no "Pro-8" minority. morningfog Jun 2013 #41

lol wat Drunken Irishman Jun 2013 #10

That is bull frazzled Jun 2013 #11

Because she clearly not much in favor of gay people. Renew Deal Jun 2013 #33

"often suggested"? RudynJack Jun 2013 #20

Quotes? Links? Renew Deal Jun 2013 #32

Kindly cite what you are claiming? nt msanthrope Jun 2013 #35

Please provide some evidence to back up the claim... Skinner Jun 2013 #37

not posting one example of this when you said it's happened "often" speaks against your statement CreekDog Jun 2013 #44

I think in an odd way both sides sort of voted to drop Prop 8 rurallib Jun 2013 #12

Thanks! nt justiceischeap Jun 2013 #14

Because she didn't agree RudynJack Jun 2013 #15

So, if I understand correctly, she felt SCOTUS justiceischeap Jun 2013 #16

She didn't write her own RudynJack Jun 2013 #21

Yes, that is exactly it. She felt standing had been conferred by the CA supreme court. morningfog Jun 2013 #43

I'm guessing she wanted a ruling. malthaussen Jun 2013 #17

I'm not sure... sweetloukillbot Jun 2013 #48

The issue was whether a private citizen had standing BainsBane Jun 2013 #18

Probably because she's Roman Catholic JW2020 Jun 2013 #19

Again, she voted to strike down DOMA. So, that dog don't hunt. nt justiceischeap Jun 2013 #22

but they love that dog so much! Puzzledtraveller Jun 2013 #23

Like Scalia isn't? No, that had nothing to do with it. 6 of the Justices are R.C. by the way. pnwmom Jun 2013 #25

And she wasn't RC when she voted to strike down DOMA? onenote Jun 2013 #30

So you think she'd RudynJack Jun 2013 #31

So is Scalia Renew Deal Jun 2013 #34

Read the dissent. elleng Jun 2013 #27

The issue in this decision was who gets to defend initiatives dsc Jun 2013 #36

Which, while great on this one dbackjon Jun 2013 #39

yea it is a bad thing for other cases dsc Jun 2013 #45