Comments

1
Nothing can be more significant to the rearing of my children than the configuration and maintenance of my genitals.

2
Meh, I'm sure this will just get challenged higher up the ladder or something. It's only a matter of time.
3
Whether this case is appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals or not, some case is going to get appealed there from Texas or Mississippi. As that Circuit covers all three states, Louisiana will be covered by any decision there.

In a way, idiot Judge Feldman might have done some good for the battle for equal treatment. If all federal courts were in complete concordance, the Supreme Court might be less motivated to step up to the plate. With this decision, though, it should be obvious that there is still some unsettled law to settle.

Having skimmed through the idiot's written decision and order, and having read the 4th and 10th Circuit decisions affirming the unconstitutionality of such laws, and listened to the oral arguments in the 7th Circuit's hearings, I'm pretty confident that Feldman's decision will be overturned if it reaches the 5th Circuit.

Meanwhile, I hope you'll forgive me for picturing the dearly missed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marty_Feldm… wearing those robes at that bench and handing down this ridiculous decision.
4
That's disappointing. I really liked him in The Hobbit and Fargo.
5
Sigh. I know I shouldn't have gotten my hopes up considering the state capital failed to pass an ordinance prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, etc., against LGBT people (only two metro council members voted in favor of it - Family Research Council and Louisiana Family Forum have a firm hold on the gonads of the politicians in this state), but given the trend, I had high hopes.

Every year I think more and more about moving to a real state.
6
@2:

Yeah, I was wondering if this was the real purpose of the judge's ruling - to get the case kicked upstairs, with the hope that eventually SCOTUS will have to weigh in because of the lack of unanimity - although I suppose that would be predicated on the result of any appeal to the 5th Circuit, as @3 indicates.
7
@3 - You know it's getting to the 5th...and I wouldn't be shocked if they upheld it. That will guarantee it gets granted cert.
8
@6 - I really doubt the judge had that sort of long-view purpose in mind when he wrote his ridiculous opinion. His Wikipedia entry was most illuminating on the subject of his complete disregard of judicial ethics in past rulings.
9
Well played, Seattleblues. Victory will soon be yours.
10
@3,@7 - While it's not inconceivable that a panel of the 5th Circuit could overturn Feldman, it doesn't have a reputation as the most conservative appellate court in the country for nothing. Offhand, I can only think of one judge on the court we could count on to rule in favor of equality, although I'm sure there are others who would - but it's whether or not they're selected for the panel. If we got, say, both Edith Brown Clement and Edith Jones, we'll lose at the 5th Circuit no matter what the appellate briefs say.

And Dan: Much of southeast Louisiana may be lost to coastal erosion, but Louisiana is a lot more than its southeast corner. Much of the area that will be lost is uninhabited swampland already, and many of those who live in the to-be-affected areas will relocate in-state. So to denigrate the entire state with the suggestion it will be "gone" in fifty years is specious. (It's a serious problem, yes, but the state itself will survive.)
11
The south is bigot's paradise and a cesspool of ignorance, so this is no big surprise. They've been using lies to oppress people since before they were a state.
12
@10 You may be right about the conservative lean of that Appeals bench, but if Rational Basis Review means anything in the 5th Circuit, I would think they'd at least want the basis of the decision to be rational. Defendant Louisiana's "rational basis" is blown to hell by the fact they permit gay co-parent adoptions. There's a dozen other reasons the decision might be overturned, but that one seemingly destroys the State's argument entirely all by itself.
13
@10 - if somehow the panel overturned it, you know it would get an en-banc appeal. It may take this getting to SCOTUS with a conflict among circuits to get this rational basis thing settled clearly. This is why Virginia's AG has asked/pushed to get this in front of the SCOTUS. The 4th and 9th are pretty much unambiguous and in complete conflict with this ruling.

@12 - I agree, the adoption practice does blow that argument apart.
14
The former Confederacy continues to be a backwards shithole, film at 11.
16
Uh, most children in Louisiana:

1. Are as uncertain of their biological father as their mother is (tabloid TV could produce 10 seasons just DNA testing the state).

OR

2. Are born out of wedlock and are often raised/reared the same.

OR

3. Do not live with both or even one of their biological parents.

OR

4. Live with their grandmother or aunt...or someone they call "grandma," "auntie" or some variation thereof.

OR...
17
Before we get all high and mighty about the South, let's recall that it was this very argument that Washington's own (In)Justice Barbara Madsen used in upholding Washington State's same-sex marriage ban in 2006 (!). And for this heinous act of bitchcraft she was rewarded by being voted Chief (In)Justice. To the best of my knowledge, she's never been confronted nor apologized for her hateful, bigoted, openly stupid ruling.
18
I teach in a public school in Louisiana where only about 50% of kids live with 2 biological parents. I cant see where banning same sex marriage will reverse that trend any time soon.
19
I think the problem with those citing the fact that Louisiana allows gay (single-parent, not joint) adoptions as undermining the rational basis finding. But rational basis is an exceedingly easy test to meet; all that's required is a finding that the challenged provision is "rationally RELATED" to *A* legitimate government interest. There's no requirement that it be effective, let alone the most effective, way of meeting that government interest, only that it's "rationally related" to that interest. And that "legitimate government interest" doesn't even have to be the actual reason for passing the law. As long as the government can proffer a legitimate governmental interest (for instance, "it's in society's interest to have two-parent families for raising children"), and as long as the challenged regulation is "related" to that - (for instance, the people most likely to have children, we allow to get married) then it meets rational basis review. Justice Thurgood Marshall himself phrased it as "The constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws."

It's an extremely deferential standard and hard to overcome. The problem with the decision is NOT that it doesn't meet the rational basis test (he's correct that it does) but that rational basis is the wrong level of scrutiny.

@13, you're right in that even with a favorable panel overturning Feldman, the court would probably vote to hear the case en banc and reverse the panel - depending on the status of cases already on their way to SCOTUS. Bear in mind that writs have already been sought in several cases and the court convenes in less than one month, likely announcing a flurry of cases it has voted to accept. By the time any panel ruling of the 5th Circuit comes down, SCOTUS may have already chosen the cases it plans to hear - if any (and I assume they will hear at least two, consolidated).

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.