HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » BREAKING: DOMA's Federal ...

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:54 PM

BREAKING: DOMA's Federal Definition of Marriage Unconstitutional, Judge Rules in Golinski Case

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.

http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2012/02/domas-federal-definition-of-ma.html

BREAKING NEWS: DOMA ruled unconstitutional in California case
(snip)
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.
http://sdgln.com/news/2012/02/22/breaking-news-doma-ruled-unconstitutional-california-case

13 replies, 4284 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply BREAKING: DOMA's Federal Definition of Marriage Unconstitutional, Judge Rules in Golinski Case (Original post)
cal04 Feb 2012 OP
RKP5637 Feb 2012 #1
cstanleytech Feb 2012 #2
Iggo Feb 2012 #3
24601 Feb 2012 #4
AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #5
Swede Atlanta Feb 2012 #6
24601 Feb 2012 #7
Ms. Toad Feb 2012 #11
24601 Feb 2012 #13
JI7 Feb 2012 #8
sdghjtyjty Feb 2012 #9
William769 Feb 2012 #10
Dont call me Shirley Feb 2012 #12

Response to cal04 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 05:55 PM

1. K&R !!! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cal04 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:09 PM

2. Took them long enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cal04 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:12 PM

3. A strand here, a domino there.

We're getting there, kids!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cal04 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:27 PM

4. It that right - the district court ruled against the Appellate Court? So who can hear the appeal,

only the USSC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 06:33 PM

5. I think that might be the next step.

Be nice to knock this law over once and for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:01 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Swede Atlanta (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:46 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 12:47 AM

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)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 06:47 PM

13. Yep - your right, I read it wrong. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cal04 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 07:51 PM

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cal04 (Original post)


Response to cal04 (Original post)

Wed Feb 22, 2012, 09:38 PM

10. FANFUCKINGTASTIC!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cal04 (Original post)

Thu Feb 23, 2012, 05:25 PM

12. It's about time georgie's appointments start turning against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread