Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyson
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I get it that the next step would be to address it in the US Supreme Court after the ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals. What I don't understand is the second point that the Supreme Court asked Ms. Jackson to argue. I think this is what the question is. "Does the Supreme Court even have jurisdiction to rule on DOMA because of the agreement with the lower court? This is where it gets fuzzy for me. Am I reading the second point correctly? What agreement was made? Is the court implying that DOMA is restricted to the enforcement and interpretation of the Executive Branch only? The article did say something about the US House of Representatives (Congress) taking up the defense of DOMA in the courts and that would come under this second point question too.
Again, thanks for responding to my post.
|
It's a
great question to ponder..complicated & very interesting..i hope it turns out to be a good thing that the Court is, at least, considering it..but it's hard to believe it can be considering it's a
very conservative court..now
why would they want to consider it now?..
