Jump to content

Talk:United States v. Windsor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Taterbill (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 28 June 2013 (→‎undue weight of dissents). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Windsor vs other cases

RE: "In doing so, they argued that Windsor presents a better vehicle than Gill v. Office of Personnel Management or Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management for determining whether section 3 violates the constitution"

The cert petition this sentence refers to makes no mention of those 2 cases. In the MetroWeekly article that discusses it, Windsor's ACLU attorney says "With Edie's case and the two others, the high court has before it..." I don't think there's a claim Windsor is a "better vehicle". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That reference to "better vehicle" is in the petition to the Supreme Court itself, which is linked to on that reference, I believe. It states that Windsor is an "excellent vehicle" to settle the constitutional question, if I remember correctly. I can't look at it right now to give you the quote, but it's in the petition for writ of certiorari before judgment. – ツ Teammm (talk · email) 18:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying this is an excellent vehicle is quite different from "better". I see no claim that this case is in any way more worthy of the court's attention than the others cases that have been the subject of cert petitions. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm not the one who did that edit and I'm not defending it. Second, I'm only telling you what the petition says and that they do state that Windsor is an "excellent" vehicle to settle the issue, not "better". However, one could interpret as them stating that it is a better case to accept on the issue because it involves one of the prominent issues with DOMA's discrimination (not only disregarding a state's rights to regulate family law but severely cripples same-sex couples financially unlike their equivalent counterpart couples under the law) If you want to change something, I have no issues with you doing it. – ツ Teammm (talk · email) 19:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already changed, "one could interpret" isn't what we do, and that interpretation would ignore all the financial claims of the Gill plaintiffs. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't say it was, not to the tune of more than a third of a million dollars, and great. – ツ Teammm (talk · email) 20:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Windsor → Windsor v. United States – legal cases take the form "plaintiff v. defendant"; Windsor is plaintiff. 71.167.157.25 (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)--71.167.157.25 (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You used "vs" instead of "v" for the second search. Results are actually higher for the latter when both use v (though I don't necessarily believe a raw Google internet search is significant anyway). I am not saying by this that I don't agree this needs discussion, just correcting the record. The IP is correct that legal cases usually take the form Plaintiff(s) v. defendant(s) but that is at the origination court. When you appeal, the caption sometimes but not always changes to list the appealing party first (even if they were the defendant below), and the party designations may become Appellant(s) v. Respondent(s), or Appellant(s) v. Appellee(s).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from technical move requests, with the above text.
  • Oppose Actually, the United States is the petitioner, that is to say, the one appealing, and it's my strong opinion that the name of this case at the Supreme Court will become the common name relatively quickly if it's not already. Note that the Supreme Court refers to it by the current name, e.g., [1]. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose To be clear about this, the district court case was called Windsor v. United States. It retained the name in the Court of Appeals because it was an appeal as of right (the existing case just moved from one court to another because at least one party wanted it to). The United States started a new action in the Supreme Court via a petition for writ of certiorari, which requested that the Supreme Court issue a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. A writ of certiorari is an order compelling a lower court to send up the case record to issuing court. The Supreme Court decided to grant the petition, and the writ was issued. Therefore, the Second Circuit's judgment in the case Windsor v. United States is under review in the Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor. That is a technical distinction that only concerns us in so far as the name of the article is concerned. Since the name of the article is exactly what we are talking about, I figured someone should make the full explanation. -Rrius (talk) 23:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Label

The label of the Court of Appelas for the Second Circuit at right side of article must be changed to the label of the US Supreme Court. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just a label. There are two different infoboxes, and I'm not sure whether we deploy the Sup Ct infobox before the decision is handed down. -Rrius (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's already done in Hollingsworth v. Perry.--В и к и T 07:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right, in Hollingsworth it was changed already. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment?

A user recently changed every instance of Fourteenth Amendment to Fifth Amendment. However, the Windsor case is not mentioned in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution article or the Due Process Clause article, so I was wondering how the Fifth Amendment applies here. Regardless, if the edits are accurate, then this needs to be stated in the article. 216.80.140.25 (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Amendment is correct. The "question presented" to which SCOTUS granted cert is: "Whether Section 3 of DOMA violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State." TJRC (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process includes a guarantee of equal protection equivalent to that in the Fourteenth Amendment. -Rrius (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is obvious. The Fifth Amendment is a restriction on the Federal government. The Fourtheenth Amendment is a restriction on the states. Since the tax exemption at issue is an exemption from Federal tax, clearly the Fifth Amendment would be the applicable one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Thorgaard (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas

Fun fact: the decision in United States v. Windsor was issued on the ten-year anniversary of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas. This is probably not sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in the article, but a fun fact for the talk page nonetheless! --MZMcBride (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a viable note for a Trivia header. Draeth Darkstar (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ew,no, please let's not introduce a "trivia" section into this article. The anniversary is not that strange of a coincidence. The Court often holds off its decisions in controversial cases to the end of the term, usually late June. There are bound to be some alignment of dates among them, with this type of calendar bunching. TJRC (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions from elected officials

I've read a great many responses from elected officials lately, besides the president. Would a list of those be relevant here? --T smitts (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

undue weight of dissents

I find that the discussion of the opinion gives undue weight to Scalia's dissenting opinion. There's about four or five times as much discussion of why a few of the dissenting judges – only two justices agreed with the second portion of Scalia's dissent, and Alito didn't sign it at all – think the world is coming to an end. There's no discussion of the other dissents. Surely the proposition accepted by the court deserves approximately as much discussion as the argument that was rejected, arguably overwhelmingly? AgnosticAphid talk 18:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The dissents need to be summarized in a concise way. I don't have time to do it. Teammm talk
email 18:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed; the way it's written, it gives the strong appearance of bias in favor of Scalia's dissent not only by the scant treatment given the majority opinion, but also by the failure to mention Roberts' and Alito's separate dissents. Reading this, one would not get the impression that Scalia's work only attracted two other Justices, one of whom did not join the full opinion, or that there were two other dissenting opinions (the Chief's own, and Alito's, joined in part by Thomas). I would go so far as to say that it appears to treat Scalia's dissent as though it should be the majority opinion, and thus fails the bias test. I lack the legal knowledge to rewrite it properly, but I would strongly urge someone who does have that knowledge to please even things out. The Rev (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I hate to punt on this as well, I am agreeing wholeheartedly, but unable to edit at this time. I think it should be clear we have a pretty good consensus going, though. I don't read it as overly POV, just outside of due weight. I think someone just spent more time on the dissent than was spent on the majority opinion. Given the scope of the article, though, I don't think the answer is more info on the majority; I agree the dissent needs to be trimmed down.204.65.34.238 (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Regardless of how anyone feels about the ruling, the dissents are where the actual interesting legal questions are. I actually feel the section is pretty well written.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_v._Windsor&oldid=562030614"