Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A federal judge has deemed unconstitutional the government’s denial of healthcare coverage and other benefits to the same-sex spouse of a Los Angeles public defender, calling into question the validity of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt said the federal government’s refusal to grant spousal benefits to Tony Sears, the husband of deputy federal public defender Brad Levenson, amounted to unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

“Because there is no rational basis for denying benefits to the same-sex spouses of [Federal Public Defender] employees while granting them to the opposite-sex spouses of FPD employees, I conclude that the application of [federal statutes] so as to reach that result is unconstitutional,” Reinhardt wrote in an order to the U.S. Courts administration to submit Levenson’s benefits election form. The ruling was issued Monday and published Wednesday.

“The denial of federal benefits to same-sex spouses cannot be justified simply by a distaste for or disapproval of same-sex marriage or a desire to deprive same-sex spouses of benefits available to other spouses in order to discourage them from exercising a legal right afforded them by a state,” Reinhardt wrote.

Neither Reinhardt’s ruling nor one in a similar case involving a 9th Circuit employee issued by appeals court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski establishes precedent that would have to be followed by courts hearing other challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act or the Federal Employee Health Benefits Act, which seek to deny federal benefits to same-sex spouses

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... riage.html

Blah blah blah. Not trying to be a jerk, just saying. This is a legislative issue. This is not a situation where courts should be making law. Once again, a violation of the Constitution. CHANGE!

ASUMountaineer wrote:Blah blah blah. Not trying to be a jerk, just saying. This is a legislative issue. This is not a situation where courts should be making law. Once again, a violation of the Constitution. CHANGE!

You are wrong on this.

The job of the judiciary is to interpret laws, and if said law VIOLATES the Constitution, then it is the DUTY of the judge to declare that law unconstitutional.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:Blah blah blah. Not trying to be a jerk, just saying. This is a legislative issue. This is not a situation where courts should be making law. Once again, a violation of the Constitution. CHANGE!

You are wrong on this.

The job of the judiciary is to interpret laws, and if said law VIOLATES the Constitution, then it is the DUTY of the judge to declare that law unconstitutional.

And, to send to the legislature to have it fixed, not to institute their own law. So, no Jon, I am not wrong on this.

I don't see why heatlh insurance is limited to spouse anyways. If I'm willing to pay for it, why can't I have it on someone I live with? I've never understood that policy. Now, if your boyfriend lives across town, then ok, not the same household. Just as I would insure my girlfriend if we didn't live together. I agree with you on the understanding of the law, just think it is a legislative issue. Read the separation of powers--that's actually in the Constitution, unlike "separation of church and state."

"Mr. Chief Justice made the law.....let HIM enforce it"
Andrew Jackson

This ruling came from the 9th Circuit Court...generally an extremely active, liberal court...

This ruling most likely would not be similar from any other CoA...

ASUMountaineer wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

You are wrong on this.

The job of the judiciary is to interpret laws, and if said law VIOLATES the Constitution, then it is the DUTY of the judge to declare that law unconstitutional.

And, to send to the legislature to have it fixed, not to institute their own law. So, no Jon, I am not wrong on this.

I don't see why heatlh insurance is limited to spouse anyways. If I'm willing to pay for it, why can't I have it on someone I live with? I've never understood that policy. Now, if your boyfriend lives across town, then ok, not the same household. Just as I would insure my girlfriend if we didn't live together. I agree with you on the understanding of the law, just think it is a legislative issue. Read the separation of powers--that's actually in the Constitution, unlike "separation of church and state."

If the law is unconstitutional, the judge's responsibility is to rule as such.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
And, to send to the legislature to have it fixed, not to institute their own law. So, no Jon, I am not wrong on this.

I don't see why heatlh insurance is limited to spouse anyways. If I'm willing to pay for it, why can't I have it on someone I live with? I've never understood that policy. Now, if your boyfriend lives across town, then ok, not the same household. Just as I would insure my girlfriend if we didn't live together. I agree with you on the understanding of the law, just think it is a legislative issue. Read the separation of powers--that's actually in the Constitution, unlike "separation of church and state."

If the law is unconstitutional, the judge's responsibility is to rule as such.

But not to order changes as part of that ruling...that duty is the legislatives responsibility...

Col Hogan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
If the law is unconstitutional, the judge's responsibility is to rule as such.

But not to order changes as part of that ruling...that duty is the legislatives responsibility...

I don't see anything ordering changes - just ordering that the health coverage be extended.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:
And, to send to the legislature to have it fixed, not to institute their own law. So, no Jon, I am not wrong on this.

I don't see why heatlh insurance is limited to spouse anyways. If I'm willing to pay for it, why can't I have it on someone I live with? I've never understood that policy. Now, if your boyfriend lives across town, then ok, not the same household. Just as I would insure my girlfriend if we didn't live together. I agree with you on the understanding of the law, just think it is a legislative issue. Read the separation of powers--that's actually in the Constitution, unlike "separation of church and state."

If the law is unconstitutional, the judge's responsibility is to rule as such.

Therefore it is to be remanded to the legislature to fix. It is not the responsibility of the court to make law. That's plain and simple. I said the judge should rule it is unconstitutional, but not to in turn make law.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
If the law is unconstitutional, the judge's responsibility is to rule as such.

Therefore it is to be remanded to the legislature to fix. It is not the responsibility of the court to make law. That's plain and simple. I said the judge should rule it is unconstitutional, but not to in turn make law.

But he is NOT making law.

The legislature passed conflicting laws. The judge ruled that the one law violated the Constitution, rendering it void, and ruling that the other law applies in this case.

No law created, no need to remand to legislature. Very simple. It is the way the judiciary is designed to work.

Health coverage should be given to same-sex couples. Every people deserves to live a healthy life free from criticisms.









---------------------------
diet critics

dbackjon wrote:
If the law is unconstitutional, the judge's responsibility is to rule as such.

sorry Jon, you're wrong. A judge's responsibility is to render judgements based on CURRENT law and Constitution. His job is not to rule anything "unconstitutional". That's the US Supreme Court's job. It's the legislature's job to change it, not the Judiciary.

I don't know why you are so hot-to-trot about this issue anyway. You're better off being "single" anyway. Health care premiums are, by a factor of at least 2, cheaper for single individuals. If you're bothered by life insurance or retirement accounts, ANYONE can be named as a beneficiary of those. It's up to the applicant to provide (and update) the beneficiary's information. Your taxes are less, because you don't have joint income.

So what really are you after?

BigApp wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
If the law is unconstitutional, the judge's responsibility is to rule as such.

sorry Jon, you're wrong. A judge's responsibility is to render judgements based on CURRENT law and Constitution. His job is not to rule anything "unconstitutional". That's the US Supreme Court's job. It's the legislature's job to change it, not the Judiciary.

I don't know why you are so hot-to-trot about this issue anyway. You're better off being "single" anyway. Health care premiums are, by a factor of at least 2, cheaper for single individuals. If you're bothered by life insurance or retirement accounts, ANYONE can be named as a beneficiary of those. It's up to the applicant to provide (and update) the beneficiary's information. Your taxes are less, because you don't have joint income.

So what really are you after?

Your bolded statement is flat out wrong.

This case was decided by the Federal Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

A Federal judge is to decide cases under the current law so long as that law is valid under the US Constiution. Challenges to the validity of a law under the US constiution are properly brought in Federal District Court. An appeal from the District Court may be taken in the Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which the District sits. Only after a Court of Appeals decision (sans rare specific instances including state versus state questions, etc.), and only if the Supreme Court grants certiori, can an appeal be taken to the US Supreme Court.

Federal District Court and Court of Appeals judges are responsible for interpretting the US Consitution and deciding whether a law enacted by Congress is valud thereunder.

thanks for the correction. Guess I was only off by one level.