Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
There was reaction from the American Center for Law and Justice.
And attorney captain Lombardo -- your take on both of these are.
Not shocked with either one actually I I think that in the defense of marriage act case.
It's important to realize that what was at stake it was not with just the one provision which is if the state allows the same sex marriage to same sex couples -- They -- to be given benefits under federal benefit rules not the state rules but under federal -- that's not really shock and there's a Federalist argument.
In fact that you know that should be up to the states in the first place what was not challenged in the defense of marriage act which is still the law.
I was section two which says that -- there's -- same sex marriage performed say in New York State it doesn't have to be recognized in Texas -- -- Texas that I recognize same sex marriage.
So not a real shot there and -- sort of a Federalist approach I think justice scalia's dissent.
Especially the first part dealing with really should the court to be even heard the case brings up the whole separation of powers this idea that the courts are not supposed to be the final orders.
Of these decisions.
That proposition eight case Sean as a -- I mean it big the court said there's no standing so there's no merits decision here.
It send it back down not -- into the Court of Appeals but rather to the district court.
So there -- in the southern district of California.
Bigger they would allow same sex marriages take place maybe the state of California doesn't go broader than that there was no holding.
That there was a constitutional right to same sex marriage.
So again not surprising that one either I I thought the standing issue with significant in that case and apparently.
I -- split majority conservative and liberal justices joining together on this there's -- not fallen ideological ones Catherine what's your reaction.
Well of course this ruling will be statewide in California I mean the district school court the ninth district it's not going to overrule itself if the issue is.
Can you get married in Southern California but not in northern California.
Today is a great day.
A great day for equality.
This is been going on for thirteen years -- started with the Knight initiative in the year 2000 with prop 22 this is not a new issue.
The wheels of justice grind slowly thirteen years to decide this issue and thank god it's been decided.
And even though it was an issue of standing.
And the United States Supreme Court decided the case on standing the issue has been result.
-- have resolved it by saying that prop eight violates the equal protection clause.
And it serves no purpose other -- to violate.
That's why it's -- important -- certainly it.
That's exactly what the supreme that would have on record since records that there was no -- priorities and what it did because that if we had not send it back down to the ninth district court.
And when you go back down to the this no number -- -- important that.
I've been uncertain Colorado and -- a lot in my vacated.
It went back to the district court not the night -- with a lot of the landlord as a and the Supreme Court has apparently has breast size -- into -- just say little.
-- hang on instead -- -- -- violate -- I don't know what little I cannot Catherine -- -- you explain your -- That's not what the supreme but let's -- -- the Supreme Court actually did.
David -- spoke to this he said he did not get a nationwide decision -- finding a fundamental right to same sex marriage no matter what side of the debate you're on.
You gotta deal with the reality of what the Supreme Court decided they decided it was not standing to challenge proposition eight.
So it did not go back to the ninth circuit district court there is no ninth circuit district court.
They are -- going to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision said about -- -- district court and David Boies said and I think he was pregnant -- there's one day.
This was a step on the road to maybe there will be you know -- found a constitutional right but they got to be finding it.
It doesn't exist in the airports in the face the constitution but even more than that the court did not address and and that included liberal members -- I thought scalia's dissent he excoriated.
His fellow jurists here you know he said in the majority is telling the the stories black and white hate your neighbor or come along -- us that said the truth is more complicated than that.
And it's hard to admit that one's political opponents are not monsters I thought he was really taking on and -- hard line is his fellow jurists.
Whether you know you might want to -- as they did -- he did that Sean because.
He -- certain that the court was overstepping its authority to address the issue after.
Period -- -- -- you know take a look at take a look at what really one of the cases that -- Justice Roberts cited.
In the opinion it says that dozens.
They had to put aside their natural emerge.
To settle the issue they wanted to resolve this issue with my personal opinion that they wanted to -- this issue once and for all.
All right we're gonna run it from there thank you both and we're not gonna address an issue -- but in this was not just conservative justices -- words liberal justices think conservative justice saying.
We're not gonna decide that issue.
Because it's not properly before the court and the court.
Doesn't given by -- according to the law and bylaw it says that it's a ruling today against the law of the land the highest court in the United States of America that it violence and I don't what do you know what a -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- how -- -- -- -- -- -- and I read the entire thing word from work work -- you gonna give both and still ahead tonight.
Filter by section