Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tennessee judge denies divorce...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tennessee judge denies divorce...

    Based on his seeing the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage as "judicial fiat" rather than based on sound legal principles, Superior Court judge Jeffery Atherton denied a couple a divorce until it is properly defined what a marriage is and isn't.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ten...z7?ocid=SMSDHP

    “The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges … affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage in the State of Tennessee,” Atherton began. “This leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary. With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessee’ s judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.”
    In simpler terms he's saying if the Supreme Court can, out of the blue, define what a marriage is then it has to define what a marriage isn't since, in his opinion, previous law on the subject no longer applies.

    Regardless of his decision, I do think it is a rather clever smack down of the Supreme Court.

  • #2
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Based on his seeing the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage as "judicial fiat" rather than based on sound legal principles, Superior Court judge Jeffery Atherton denied a couple a divorce until it is properly defined what a marriage is and isn't.

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ten...z7?ocid=SMSDHP



    In simpler terms he's saying if the Supreme Court can, out of the blue, define what a marriage is then it has to define what a marriage isn't since, in his opinion, previous law on the subject no longer applies.

    Regardless of his decision, I do think it is a rather clever smack down of the Supreme Court.
    And if you were the couple seeking a divorce and had just went through a 4 day divorce hearing what would you think of the Judge using your case to grand stand?
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

    Comment


    • #3
      The government should get out of the marriage business altogether or rather should never have been involved. Marriage is a nebulous concept that can't be defined or at least is defined differently by every ethnic group, religion, sex, and generation defining it offers little hope of rectify any of the issued raises.

      The grounds for same sex marriage do not require marriage to be defined only that the issuances of licences be non discriminatory. The judge in this case is discriminating against a couple that has an expectation of being treated the same as they would in any other court.

      The real issues are related to contract law not how marriage is defined. For example common law marriage I assume will now apply to same sex couples. Common law marriage and the responsibilities of the parties is based on the idea of a binding verbal contract and needs to be explored in more detail than I want to devote at the moment. Those principles of verbal contracts in my opinion make marriage superfluous.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
        And if you were the couple seeking a divorce and had just went through a 4 day divorce hearing what would you think of the Judge using your case to grand stand?
        The same thing I think most other people who've be shafted by judges making law whole cloth through judicial fiat. That happens all the time, and more often than not by Progressive judges.

        There was one Progressive judge on the 9th Circuit I watched on a 60 Minutes interview years ago who told Mike Wallace on national TV (not the exact quote mind you) "Yes, I make law from the bench all time. Only one in ten of my cases gets to the Supreme Court and they're always overturned. But, that means I win nine out of ten times!"

        What do you do when there are dozens, hundreds, of judges in state and federal courts who are willing to just make up their rulings rather than follow the law when it suits them?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          The same thing I think most other people who've be shafted by judges making law whole cloth through judicial fiat. That happens all the time, and more often than not by Progressive judges.

          There was one Progressive judge on the 9th Circuit I watched on a 60 Minutes interview years ago who told Mike Wallace on national TV (not the exact quote mind you) "Yes, I make law from the bench all time. Only one in ten of my cases gets to the Supreme Court and they're always overturned. But, that means I win nine out of ten times!"

          What do you do when there are dozens, hundreds, of judges in state and federal courts who are willing to just make up their rulings rather than follow the law when it suits them?
          Lots of deflection in that post.

          This is NOT about appellate courts or the SCOTUS or anything else. This about a small state court that has ONE function to rule on the case IN FRONT OF THEM. Not on an issue that has nothing to do with the case in front of them.
          “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
          “To talk of many things:
          Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
          Of cabbages—and kings—
          And why the sea is boiling hot—
          And whether pigs have wings.”
          ― Lewis Carroll

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            The same thing I think most other people who've be shafted by judges making law whole cloth through judicial fiat. That happens all the time, and more often than not by Progressive judges.

            There was one Progressive judge on the 9th Circuit I watched on a 60 Minutes interview years ago who told Mike Wallace on national TV (not the exact quote mind you) "Yes, I make law from the bench all time. Only one in ten of my cases gets to the Supreme Court and they're always overturned. But, that means I win nine out of ten times!"

            What do you do when there are dozens, hundreds, of judges in state and federal courts who are willing to just make up their rulings rather than follow the law when it suits them?
            Oh, please share with us just how much of the ruling in this case that you actually READ. Please post the parts that show us where he gave a rather: "rather clever smack down of the Supreme Court." I'm sure you've read it, right?
            “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
            “To talk of many things:
            Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
            Of cabbages—and kings—
            And why the sea is boiling hot—
            And whether pigs have wings.”
            ― Lewis Carroll

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
              Lots of deflection in that post.

              This is NOT about appellate courts or the SCOTUS or anything else. This about a small state court that has ONE function to rule on the case IN FRONT OF THEM. Not on an issue that has nothing to do with the case in front of them.
              BS. This is about judicial activism. This time you just don't like the activism.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
                Oh, please share with us just how much of the ruling in this case that you actually READ. Please post the parts that show us where he gave a rather: "rather clever smack down of the Supreme Court." I'm sure you've read it, right?
                While it is activism, what he's in effect doing is forcing these people to appeal to a higher state court to get their divorce. Otherwise, they aren't getting it. If it goes to the state supreme court then they have to rule on it. If it doesn't it becomes state precedent. At the Superior Court level.

                It is about a case of judicial activism. If it gets into the federal courts, it has the potential to go to the Supreme Court.

                It is one judge protesting what he sees as judicial activism by other judges and his response to it. Is having judges make the laws of the land and then enforcing them what you really want? That's what this is really about.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  While it is activism, what he's in effect doing is forcing these people to appeal to a higher state court to get their divorce. Otherwise, they aren't getting it. If it goes to the state supreme court then they have to rule on it. If it doesn't it becomes state precedent. At the Superior Court level.

                  It is about a case of judicial activism. If it gets into the federal courts, it has the potential to go to the Supreme Court.

                  It is one judge protesting what he sees as judicial activism by other judges and his response to it. Is having judges make the laws of the land and then enforcing them what you really want? That's what this is really about.
                  The argument you make is the same one that was made concerning civil rights in the 60s. There is a fundamental principle that constitutional law has a hierarchical nature in which the supreme court has the authority to ignore other provisions of the constitution such as the powers of congress or states rights and protect against discrimination that infringes on individual liberties.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    BS. This is about judicial activism. This time you just don't like the activism.
                    Funny how in this case is all about the poor couple trying to dissolve their union, but when its a judge over-turning the voter's wishes its just legal precedent...
                    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Interesting ...
                      Since the President's lap-dogs in the Supreme Court have made themselves the arbiters of all Marriages, why not kick all Divorce cases up to them?

                      If they want all the power, they can do all the work too.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                        The argument you make is the same one that was made concerning civil rights in the 60s. There is a fundamental principle that constitutional law has a hierarchical nature in which the supreme court has the authority to ignore other provisions of the constitution such as the powers of congress or states rights and protect against discrimination that infringes on individual liberties.
                        Civil Rights weren't decided in a court. They can about as a combination of legislation, amendments to the constitution, and Congressional, Presidential, and state actions.

                        The difference here is that the redefinition of marriage has been accomplished almost entirely within the legal system by judges and lawyers while all the legislation, congressional, and state actions have been largely against it.

                        Look at California for example. The people of that state amended their constitution to retain traditional marriage. A single gay judge overturned that legislative action. Similarly, 34 other states had various legislation and actions by "the people" overturned in favor of the LBGT agenda.

                        Also, unlike Civil Rights where there were clearly race and gender issues involving something that was innate to individuals (that is, they had no choice about race or gender) the LBGT agenda is all about sexual choices. The most obvious, and egregious, of these is the "T" part of that agenda. Cross dressing, cosmetic surgery and genital mutilation, among others, is clearly a choice not something innate or inborn to a person.
                        Society has no reason to attempt through laws to accommodate everyone so that they don't feel uncomfortable around others because of their choices.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Simple solution - remove marriage / divorce from government entirely.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Or just change the gay marriage part to "civil union" with the same status and privileges.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              Or just change the gay marriage part to "civil union" with the same status and privileges.
                              States and "The People" tried that route in a number of cases only to have a handful of judges overturn them.

                              I also agree, government shouldn't be in the marriage business in any case.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X