Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:54 PM
cal04 (37,773 posts)
BREAKING: DOMA's Federal Definition of Marriage Unconstitutional, Judge Rules in Golinski Case
Last edited Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)
Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued its order finding that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act -- the federal definition of marriage -- is unconstitutional in Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, Karen Golinski's challenge to the denial of her request for equal health insurance benefits for her wife.
Golinski, a federal court employee, brought suit after denied the request. She is represented by Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.
In part, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey S. White found:
The Court concludes that, based on the justifications proffered by Congress for its passage of DOMA, the statute fails to satisfy heightened scrutiny and is unconstitutional as applied to Ms. Golinski.
BREAKING NEWS: DOMA ruled unconstitutional in California case
District Judge Jeffery White, an appointee by President George W. Bush in 2002, ruled that DOMA violates the rights of Karen Golinski, who was denied spousal health benefits by her employer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
13 replies, 4134 views
BREAKING: DOMA's Federal Definition of Marriage Unconstitutional, Judge Rules in Golinski Case (Original post)
|Swede Atlanta||Feb 2012||#6|
|Ms. Toad||Feb 2012||#11|
|Dont call me Shirley||Feb 2012||#12|
Response to 24601 (Reply #4)
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:33 PM
AtheistCrusader (17,146 posts)
5. I think that might be the next step.
Be nice to knock this law over once and for all.
I am a 'peace purist' and proud of it. If that pisses you off, you are exactly the sort of person I want to piss off.
Response to 24601 (Reply #4)
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:01 PM
Swede Atlanta (2,675 posts)
6. No, the District Court did not overrule the Appellate Court (i.e. 9th Circuit)
The District Court is an inferior court of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court. It lacks authority to overturn a decision of a superior court.
The reference to the 9th Circuit appears to be in reference to the Plaintiff's employer, i.e. she works for the 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit failed to provide her with benefits not as a result of judicial review but rather as an employer. I have to assume federal agencies, including the courts, have guidelines regarding spousal benefits.
The District Court judge simply held that the denial of benefits by the 9th Circuit as an employer is unconstitutional on an "as applied" basis.
The appellate process is to the 9th Circuit starting with a 3-judge panel of that circuit. From there a plaintiff or defendant can appeal to the full 9th Circuit or appeal to the Supreme Court.
Don't worry about what your neighbors think of you because they seldom do (think that is)!
Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #6)
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:46 PM
24601 (2,750 posts)
7. I didn't say "overruled". My point is that the entire 9th circuit is a party to the case. With an
inherent interest as respondents, how could any of 9th circuit judges sit on an appeal.
I feel strongly about it either way....
Response to 24601 (Reply #7)
Thu Feb 23, 2012, 12:47 AM
Ms. Toad (10,268 posts)
11. The party is the Office of Personnel Management, not the 9th Circuit
(Same situation as one of the other cases already on appeal for the same section of DOMA)
Response to cal04 (Original post)
Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:51 PM
JI7 (43,250 posts)
8. anyone think this will help santorum in upcoming primaries ?
he can talk about the false conservatives and how they need him to "save" god or some shit like that.