So, now that Governors have an expanded Pocket-Veto, what can they do with it? (1 Viewer)

[cpwill]

The SCOTUS ruled in the Prop 8 case that if the officers of a state government simply refuse to enforce the law, that you basically can't stop them shy of impeachment. Governor Brown has since instructed the clerks to issue marriage certificates to homosexual couples, in violation of Prop 8 which is STILL the law of the State of California, the cases involving it having been struck for lack of standing.

So, now that government can ignore the law at the will of the executive, what's next?

I'm thinking, somewhere out there governors should simply refuse to enforce ridiculous levels of regulatory compliance imposed by previous administrations. Republicans facing down public unions don't need to pass legislation anymore - they simply need to refuse to enforce union shop laws. The next President (following this President's treatment of DOMA and our immigration law) should instruct the IRS not to enforce a progressive tax code, and of course Obamacare should be on everyone's list of "things we'll just choose not to enforce, thereby effectively annulling the law."


Where do you think governors will take this?

 

[penn1954]

The SCOTUS ruled in the Prop 8 case that if the officers of a state government simply refuse to enforce the law, that you basically can't stop them shy of impeachment. Governor Brown has since instructed the clerks to issue marriage certificates to homosexual couples, in violation of Prop 8 which is STILL the law of the State of California, the cases involving it having been struck for lack of standing.

So, now that government can ignore the law at the will of the executive, what's next?

I'm thinking, somewhere out there governors should simply refuse to enforce ridiculous levels of regulatory compliance imposed by previous administrations. Republicans facing down public unions don't need to pass legislation anymore - they simply need to refuse to enforce union shop laws. The next President (following this President's treatment of DOMA and our immigration law) should instruct the IRS not to enforce a progressive tax code, and of course Obamacare should be on everyone's list of "things we'll just choose not to enforce, thereby effectively annulling the law."


Where do you think governors will take this?

Nowhere. Most Govs have no balls cause they want to move up in politics.
and they saw what happened to Scott Walker when every union thug
was bussed in to the statehouse.

For these reasons I dont think any Govs will try this.
I'd sure like to see it though!
For Walker I have great:applaud

For Jerry Brown-great contempt.

 

[cpwill]

Nowhere. Most Govs have no balls cause they want to move up in politics.
and they saw what happened to Scott Walker when every union thug
was bussed in to the statehouse.

....he went from being somebody that nobody knew of to someone with multiple major victories under his belt who is talked about seriously as a Presidential candidate?

For these reasons I dont think any Govs will try this.
I'd sure like to see it though!

Power tends not to get left on the shelf very long, once it is available.

 

[penn1954]

....he went from being somebody that nobody knew of to someone with multiple major victories under his belt who is talked about seriously as a Presidential candidate?



Power tends not to get left on the shelf very long, once it is available.

Agreed. I just think most wont have the guts to do it.

 

[Fisher]

Well, I think the petty pissing match that played out in the DOMA decision among the Justices showed both Kennedy and Scalia to be political hacks which is worth noting. That said, refusing to comply with the law undermines the integrity of the whole government process. We have enough petulant people in this world without encouraging it among our leaders.

 

[LowDown]

The SCOTUS ruled in the Prop 8 case that if the officers of a state government simply refuse to enforce the law, that you basically can't stop them shy of impeachment. Governor Brown has since instructed the clerks to issue marriage certificates to homosexual couples, in violation of Prop 8 which is STILL the law of the State of California, the cases involving it having been struck for lack of standing.

So, now that government can ignore the law at the will of the executive, what's next?

I'm thinking, somewhere out there governors should simply refuse to enforce ridiculous levels of regulatory compliance imposed by previous administrations. Republicans facing down public unions don't need to pass legislation anymore - they simply need to refuse to enforce union shop laws. The next President (following this President's treatment of DOMA and our immigration law) should instruct the IRS not to enforce a progressive tax code, and of course Obamacare should be on everyone's list of "things we'll just choose not to enforce, thereby effectively annulling the law."


Where do you think governors will take this?

As I understand it, SCOTUS said that only people with standing can challenge a refusal to enforce, and that would be anyone with a concrete and particularized harm done them by lack of enforcement. In the case of Prop 8 it could be an insurance company that is forced to pay out benefits for gay partners, for example. Or there could be family law implications. In any case it's not true, I think, that nothing can be done if state officials refuse to enforce a law.

 

[rocket88]

As I understand it, SCOTUS said that only people with standing can challenge a refusal to enforce, and that would be anyone with a concrete and particularized harm done them by lack of enforcement. In the case of Prop 8 it could be an insurance company that is forced to pay out benefits for gay partners, for example. Or there could be family law implications. In any case it's not true, I think, that nothing can be done if state officials refuse to enforce a law.

The scenario you envision here, while it might change the outcome, would also throw all marriages on the fire. If they can challenge being force to pay benefits for gay partners, it stands to reason they could do the same for straight ones.

 

[Fisher]

The scenario you envision here, while it might change the outcome, would also throw all marriages on the fire. If they can challenge being force to pay benefits for gay partners, it stands to reason they could do the same for straight ones.

So?......

 

[CanadaJohn]

I think they'll simply follow the lead of the President, who's taken the position that whatever law he doesn't like he will simply instruct his Justice Department and their agents to ignore or not enforce.

One would have to ask if in today's society the federal government would enter a state with it's military might and enforce a Supreme Court ruling that a state government ignored or refused to enforce, as it did in the past. The general public is far less trusting of the federal government than it once was - it would be interesting and potentially very dangerous times.

 

[LowDown]

The scenario you envision here, while it might change the outcome, would also throw all marriages on the fire. If they can challenge being force to pay benefits for gay partners, it stands to reason they could do the same for straight ones.

I throw that example out just as one of a plaintiff with some skin in the game. I don't know whether it's a valid example or not.

Let's say, for example, that a gay man with children has a partner and dies. If the two were lawfully married then the partner is entitled to 100% of the inheritance unless there was a will. The children could sue on the basis of that material harm if the marriage exists as a result of lack of enforcement of Prop 8.

 

[rocket88]

So?......

It could be an unintended consequence. I doubt many conservatives would want all marriages thrown out because an insurance company wants to save some money.

 

[rocket88]

I throw that example out just as one of a plaintiff with some skin in the game. I don't know whether it's a valid example or not.

Let's say, for example, that a gay man with children has a partner and dies. If the two were lawfully married then the partner is entitled to 100% of the inheritance unless there was a will. The children could sue on the basis of that material harm if the marriage exists as a result of lack of enforcement of Prop 8.

Assuming that the gay spouse is not an adoptive parent of these children, I would assume that it works the same as any step-parent situation. I wouldn't want to see all divorced parents prevented from re-marrying just because of gays.

 

[Fisher]

It could be an unintended consequence. I doubt many conservatives would want all marriages thrown out because an insurance company wants to save some money.

So they get an Obamacare policy. No big deal.

FYI, a local food processing plant is already charging employees extra if their spouse is on their policy and is eligible to be insured elsewhere through their own employment so it is not the insurance companies you need to worry about........

 

[LowDown]

Assuming that the gay spouse is not an adoptive parent of these children, I would assume that it works the same as any step-parent situation. I wouldn't want to see all divorced parents prevented from re-marrying just because of gays.

What I'm assuming is that if a man with children is lawfully married to another man then the other man gets all of the inheritance if the man with children dies, just as a wife would (if the man dies without a will). If they are not lawfully married then the inheritance all goes to the children. If enforcement of Prop 8 is what determines whether the men are lawfully married or not then that lack of enforcement becomes a source of material harm to the children because with enforcement there would be no gay marriage.

 

[rocket88]

What I'm assuming is that if a man with children is lawfully married to another man then the other man gets all of the inheritance if the man with children dies, just as a wife would (if the man dies without a will). If they are not lawfully married then the inheritance all goes to the children. If enforcement of Prop 8 is what determines whether the men are lawfully married or not then that lack of enforcement becomes a source of material harm to the children because with enforcement there would be no gay marriage.

The lower court struck it down and the SC did not reverse that. Therefore it's not law. I'm not sure you can sue using a law that's been struck down.

 

[LowDown]

The lower court struck it down and the SC did not reverse that. Therefore it's not law. I'm not sure you can sue using a law that's been struck down.

You could sue on the basis that the state refused to defend the law and appeal the decision.

But I've heard it both ways now; that the lower court ruling was overturned and that it was not. So it's not clear to me whether Prop 8 is in effect or not.

 

[polgara]

....he went from being somebody that nobody knew of to someone with multiple major victories under his belt who is talked about seriously as a Presidential candidate?



Power tends not to get left on the shelf very long, once it is available.

Good afternoon, cpwill. :2wave:

Excellent response! Last I heard, the voters agreed with Gov Walker! :2bow: All the spinning in the world won't change that fact! :argue:

 

[cpwill]

The scenario you envision here, while it might change the outcome, would also throw all marriages on the fire. If they can challenge being force to pay benefits for gay partners, it stands to reason they could do the same for straight ones.

No - for the simple reason that there (at least, in California) they would be following the law. Marriage between two people of the same gender remains illegal in California.

 

[cpwill]

You could sue on the basis that the state refused to defend the law and appeal the decision.

But I've heard it both ways now; that the lower court ruling was overturned and that it was not. So it's not clear to me whether Prop 8 is in effect or not.

A) Prop 8 Remains the Law
B) The Government simply refuses to enact it.

It's in effect de jure, but not de facto.

 

[rocket88]

No - for the simple reason that there (at least, in California) they would be following the law. Marriage between two people of the same gender remains illegal in California.

Assuming a change in the law, which I believe overturning Prop 8 did but I could be wrong, would make SSM legal. If it were to be legal, then the same situation could apply to straight people potentially.

 

[rocket88]

A) Prop 8 Remains the Law
B) The Government simply refuses to enact it.

It's in effect de jure, but not de facto.

It was overturned by Federal Court as unconstitutional and the Supreme Court did now change that ruling. Therefore, the fact it was struck down stands at least for now.