Interpreter Billing: Fill & Download for Free

Nobody can tell and this one really is a crap-shoot. This answer is a bit long and, therefore, is written with a mind to:Explain American law and jurisprudence to our non-American friends.Explain some of the finer points to Americans who either haven't cared until now or who generally don't pay much interest to legal politics.The usually interested who might want to see what the sundry issues will be that this court must deal with.Key Words & Phrases:SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)Bill of Rights (colloquially, the first ten amendments proposed and adopted directly after the ratification of the Constitution in order to more clearly define civil rights within the USA)DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, denying gay marriages on a federal level or recognition and permitting the states to decide for themselves and NOT have to recognize those of other states/nations).What conflicting court issues are being combined into one "hearing" for the Supreme Court:From California: Lawsuits that have worked their way up from the State Court around Proposition 8 in that it is (a) against the US constitution to deny people their rights on the XIV Amendment and (b) it is highly unethical to grant civil rights and take them away.From New York: The federal government is denying benefits to survivors of spouses who earned those benefits. There are a few of these, but the essence is that the Federal Government SHOULD recognize Canadian marriage licenses and the marriage licenses of the states who issue them.What we have are:Constitutional stricture, ambiguities and conflicts.Evolving contemporary ideals.US Supreme Court ideologies regarding proper government and human behavior.Key Justice to watch:Anthony Kennedy (Associate Justice) - The court is pretty fractured. Without a doubt, Kennedy is the most important human being when it comes to gay rights LIKELY IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA (exponentially so if he comes down in favor of gay marriage).John Roberts (Chief Justice) - I will repeat this several times, he may want a longer legacy and it appears he's willing to see this from the long view.A vote in favor from EITHER Kennedy or Roberts makes this an absolute win for gays and gay marriage proponents.--Constitutional Stricture, Ambiguities and Conflicts--The Full Faith & Credit Clause - ("FF&C") demands that states respect the laws and institutions of other states; it does NOT permit the federal government to limit this clause or define it. It says what it means. Full Faith and Credit ClauseIX Amendment - which states that people have more rights than those simply spelled out in the Constitution. There are others that have not been defined or imagined. It doesn't say who's to extend or define them, so it's left to the individual states, Congress and the SCOTUS to define who those people are, what those rights are and how they are applied within their jurisdiction. Ninth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionXIV Amendment - demands that all citizens be treated as equals before the law and not be denied the rights and immunities enjoyed by the citizens of the United States. Fourteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Necessary & Proper Clause - ("N&P") which grants the US Congress the power to enact laws that are "prudent and necessary" to exercising the powers defined in the Constitution and those that the SCOTUS interprets are within its prevue based on the ambiguities of the Constitution. Necessary and Proper ClauseThere's an issue with the fact that the Supreme Court has granted ever more leeway to the Congress of the USA in exercising powers that it never had before, while also understanding that the States were required to respect each other's acts while at the same time respecting the IV Amendment of the Constitution.Does the Congress have the right under the Necessary & Proper Clause to limit the scope of the Full Faith & Credit Clause?Do gays apply under the XIV Amendment's wording, despite the fact that this is CLEARLY not what the framers of that Amendment wanted?SHOULD gays be treated as a suspect class?SHOULD the Supreme Court get ahead of this issue and on the "right" side of history before history outruns the Court?Do we need to concern ourselves with original intent, since clearly, we have evolved ethically beyond what they wanted in the first place?Is this right for the country?Will a Constructionist vote in favor of Full Faith & Credit and strike down DOMA or see this as a larger "interstate" issue and uphold Congressional powers?Possible Outcomes:OUTCOME ONE: Side with the Congress, hold that gays have no specific human rights pertaining to their sexuality, uphold DOMA (under the N&P Clause), restrict FF&C Clause and leave current law in place. States WILL still keep their gay rights laws, but the Federal Government and the other states will not have to recognize. This will be the law of the land, then, until Congress "evolves" and passes a gay civil rights act AND/OR the states individually pass these acts AND/OR the SCOTUS is altered by retirements (and likely will be the time Obama leaves in 2016). Not as much of a disaster as some gays make it out to be: this is merely a continuation of the status quo and the tide is turning no matter what the Court decides. My best "Nate Silver" odds: 4.5/10OUTCOME TWO: Call DOMA a congressional over reach beyond the N&P Clause, enforce the FF&C clause nationally and expand the IV Amendment of the Constitution to include gays and lesbians (and likely transgender) thus being the largest civil rights expansion in US history since the 1960's. States & the federal government will ALL be required to issue and recognize gay marriage (likely within a reasonable time-frame to work out the logistics). My best "Nate Silver" odds: 5.5/10.OUTCOME THREE: Call DOMA a congressional over reach beyond the N&P Clause in relevance to the states and enforce the FF&C act nationally BUT permit DOMA in the federal sphere because the federal government DOES have the right to govern its own actions. Highly unlikely. Courts don't like creating a gelatinous legal mess. My best "Nate Silver" odds: 1/10.OUTCOME FOUR: Individual decisions based on the lower courts rulings (i.e. "California's Prop 8 is thrown out, but the lower court's ruling in NY stands."), also unlikely. My best "Nate Silver" odds: 1/10.--Evolving contemporary ideals--The people who sit on the bench aren't dumb. I respect ALL of them (well, except maybe for one). They are all profound thinkers, fair minded and very intelligent. Each of them comes to his or her ideologies through very sound and rational means.That said, ALL of them are completely aware that the tide has turned on this issue and only a moron would predict that 20 years from now the USA won't have gay marriage--barring an invasion from Mars, the sudden appearance of Christ descending from the clouds (above the USA, of course, we're Jesusland) or a violent revolution destroying the nation--we all see this coming.Many justices are concerned with evolving ideals concerning gays; some are staunch supporters of traditional ethics; others may believe that gays deserve to marry but cannot bring themselves to "reinterpret" the Constitution to make that happen.But there is the fact, that the court will want to be on the right side of history and this will be a heated debate in their chambers. Nobody wants to be the "justice" who wrote another Dred Scott decision and ridiculed for eternity.--US Supreme Court ideologies regarding proper government and human behavior--The court has to balanceOne justice will be strict interpretationists and not judge the morality of the behavior. (Scalia).Two are more or less guaranteed to see this through the lens of their social and religious values and judge it not worthy of protection. (Thomas & Alito).The Chief Justice will judge this through his views of the "nature" of the Constitution and may want HIS tenure as Chief Justice to be marked by being on the "right" side of history when he knows full well that times are changing (to avoid being a "Dred Scott" chief justice . . . but may otherwise be hard-pressed to justify it by wording or is personal beliefs. (Roberts)One is very much in the middle and may side with the "left" because he--like Roberts--won't want to be on the wrong side of history. (Kennedy)Four others are staunch liberals and will want--both based on their Constitutional interpretation and personal ideologies--to extend rights to gays. (Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor & Kagan)My Prediction:CONSERVATIVESAntonin Scalia - I actually respect this man. He makes decisions based on a fundamental ideology that basically runs on strict interpretation ("constructionism"). I don't like his philosophies, but I respect the man behind the ideology.LIKELY: On its own without the Congressional act, he'd strike down the state's refusing to recognize gay marriage licenses out of state -- he's that much a Constructionist, but he's also likely to see this as a N&P power and uphold DOMA under Congressional purview. No grounds for IX or XIV Amendment extension.Clearance Thomas - Again, very conservative constructionist. Not a fan of this guy, but that's all I'll say. He will not vote in favor of extending the XIV Amendment to gays.LIKELY: Uphold N&P on its own, but likely to do so because of a distaste for the moral implications of gay marriage. No grounds for IX or XIV Amendment extension.Samuel Alito - Not a chance. Bush picked him for good reason: he's the most aggressively Conservative of the bunch. Where Scalia & Thomas are conservatives but will base their interpretations on fundamental Constructionism, Alito will allow his conservative stripes to influence him on what he sees as "moral" grounds.LIKELY: Uphold N&P on its own and won't budge on the moral grounds and opposition to gay marriage. No grounds for IX or XIV Amendment extension.LIBERALSRuth Bader Ginsberg - I could say basically the same thing about all three liberal justices: that is, they are ideological liberals in Constitutional interpretation and in social values. She wants this as the jewel in her crown before retiring. She wants to make history on this one and sees herself on the right side of history. PREDICTION: She'll retire after this decision.LIKELY: Absolutely strike down DOMA as a Congressional over-reach; impose FF&C and extend the IX or XIV Amendment to gays.Stephen Breyer - Very progressive. He believes the job of the SCOTUS is to make the laws better for humans. He's willing to "reinterpret" to make a better nation.LIKELY: Strike down DOMA; impose FF&C and extend IX or XIV Amendment to gays.Elena Kagan - No doubt, she's a liberal. She was put on the bench specifically because of her closeness to the Obama cabinet as an answer to Alito. She's a liberal activist judge who will likely see this as an IX and XIV Amendment issue.LIKELY: Strike down DOMA; impose FF&C and extend IX or XIV Amendment to gays.UNKNOWNSonia Sotomayor - Yes. Sotomayor. We have no idea how she'll vote. She's a staunch liberal, but she's surprisingly willing to buck the trend. Since her ideology may permit expanded Congressional power to do such things, she may well vote to uphold DOMA despite personally disagreeing with it. Call her the Scalia of the Liberal side: she's got a formula and is likely to let that formula rule her decisions more than ideology.LIKELY: Strike down DOMA; impose FF&C, extend either IX or XIV Amendments to gays.Anthony Kennedy - He's a centrist-liberal at heart, but he carries a lot of weight of the wording of the Constitution. He's actually very annoyed at the power-grabs by the Federal Government and this will weigh heavily on him. He's also been really pro-gay rights and crafted several legislative decisions in the favor of gays. Make no mistake: Kennedy will be the deciding vote in this case.LIKELY: So hard to predict, but given his track-record of expanding and protecting gay rights, I think he'll strike down DOMA, impose FF&C and extend either the IX or XIV Amendments to gays.John Roberts - I think he's becoming a social moderate at heart and even more importantly, he's feeling the weight of being the Chief Justice at a time when civil rights and our social mores are changing. He wants to be on the right side of history and will be fearful of being "that Justice" that history looks back upon and thinks of when prejudice decisions are mentioned. Everybody fears for his/her legacy, Roberts included.LIKELY: Again, hard to predict. I think he'll possibly keep DOMA because he has no issue with growing federal power. I don't see him extending the IX or XIV Amendments to gays.OUTCOMEI hate making predictions because I hate being wrong. But I'll take a risk. Let me say, I'm not a betting man on this. I'm like 55/45 and won't be surprised either way when it happens.I predict that DOMA will be struck down. I also predict this court will not want a divided decision and will be concerned for its prediction effecting the Federal Government. I hope it extends rights to gays and I cannot help thinking that that "hope" is clouding my judgement, but in the end I think it'll come down in favor of gay marriage and require both the states and federal government to recognize it.In a FIVE TO FOUR decision in favor of gay marriage:Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan: I think Ginsberg will pen the decision as something she's wanted for several decades and retire a proud woman. All five speak, especially Kennedy.Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas: Scalia (maybe Alito) will pend the dissent. Scalia will likely rage and give one of his legendary rants. Thomas will not say a thing. Roberts will likely give a mixed dissent wanting to leave passion out.In a SIX TO THREE decision in favor of gay marriage:Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan: I salivate at this decision. I actually dreamed about it last night (no shit). I won't hold my breath, but such a decision carries a powerful weight behind it. Legally it's the same, but socially it is a sledge-hammer to conservatives. Ginsberg writes the decision. Roberts delivers.Scalia, Alito, Thoma: same as before, a very vitriolic dissent from Scalia and likely Alito.--Closing--The really interesting thing is that--while I'll be THRILLED with a decision in favor of gay marriage--I won't be one of the people wailing in the streets calling this a "travesty" and running around simmering in a stew of piss and vinegar. I will be saddened a bit, but I really see this as a long fight and no matter what the court decides; we're at least two full decades away from the social change I want to see.Even if the court decides against gay marriage and upholds DOMA, the fact still stands that on a local level, we saw the first cracks against homophobia on a political level. And if the proponents of gay marriage lose in 2013, then it just means we'll be fighting state by state in the next several years. California, Oregon, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware and Hawaii are next.With California, Oregon, New Jersey and Hawaii being the ones already significantly over the tipping point to amending their constitutions democratically. While I hate putting human rights up to a vote (we're a republic, not a direct democracy), there's a certain joy in seeing conservatives lose these votes.

The Second Amendment was created over 200 years ago. Why is it in any way relevant today?Wow! This question really created a fire storm and probably because of Anthony Cady excellent interpretation. So let me give you a current example of where the United State Government tried to outgun a U.S. Citizen and it blew up in their face. Cliven Bundy (going back three generations) lease land called “Bunkerville Allotment” up until 1993 and stop paying the fee’s. The fucking left and their “save the planet” do gooders decided to “Save the Tortoise” and In 1989, the federal government declared the desert tortoise an endangered species. The same thing happened here in Arizona as the Government decided to save theWhite Spotted Owl” and shut down an entire logging industry and put huge numbers of people out of work. Arizona is not the story, Nevada and old Clive is.Bundy, who were using the land to graze cattle got the short end of the stick. In 1991, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service approved a short-term conservation plan that allowed for development of about 22,000 acres of tortoise habitat in and around Las Vegas. Then in 1993, the U.S government mandated elimination of livestock grazing and strict limits on off-road vehicle use in the protected tortoise habitat. Fuck the Ranchers, we are going to save a few Turtles. So the new law more than doubled the conservation area, and included the Bunkerville Allotment. Bundy stopped paying his annual fee to the BLM and appealed. The Federal Courts stated that the land for grazing was controlled by the BLM and not the citizens of America. The fee’s the court charged him soon became thousand times what his annual grazing fee’s were.Bundy accumulated more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees and court-ordered fines according to The Portland Oregonian newspaper reported in May 2014 that the amount that Bundy owed stood in "stark contrast" to the situation in Oregon, where just 45 of the state's roughly 1,100 grazing permit holders collectively owed $18,759 in past-due payments to the BLM, and only two ranchers had unpaid fees more than 60 days past due. It became selective prosecution or Revenge.The Department of the Interior, through the Courts, confiscated all of Bundy’s cattle and ordered the round up of the livestock. It published in the Federal Register that: "This temporary closure is necessary to limit public access, use, and occupancy during an impoundment of illegally grazing cattle to ensure the safety and welfare of the public, contractors, and government employees” The problem was you can’t shut down Bunkerville Allotment (145,604 acres) and the New Trespass Lands (451,775 acres) from a peaceful assembly under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. What the Government forgot about was the second amendment and that was the right to bare arms. Wait until you hear what showed up against the BLM, the Forrest Service, and everything short of the National Guard.I am going to let Wikipedia described what happened next; “The Bureau of Land Management designated two First Amendment zones "... for members of the public to express their First Amendment rights: Interstate 15 and Exit 112 for Riverside and State Route 170 and White Rock Road" with just one of the two First Amendment zones open at any one time at the daily discretion of the "Incident Command staff." A third area, Interstate 15 and Toquap Wash (between mile marker 114 and 115), was designated as a media area and "... BLM/NPS credentialed media ..." could request tours by appointment inside the enclosure area to obtain b-roll video, no live feed and satellite trucks allowed”This is where it get’s fun. “ In early April, armed people and private militia members from across the United States joined peaceful protesters against the trespass-cattle roundup in what has become known as the Battle of Bunkerville (evoking an association with the Battle of Bunker Hill). BLM enforcement agents were dispatched in response to what were seen as threatening statements by Bundy, such as calling the events a "range war". Wikipedia, The Bundy Standoff”’ Little did they know, that the United States government was about to be out gunned, out numbered and about to be the biggest Confrontation of Union or now called U.S. Troops by a Civilian Militia since the Civil War.The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that tensions reached a "critical level" during the standoff, "with rifles pointing toward each side." Las Vegas station KLAS-TV also reported that guns were pointed at officers. Assistant Sheriff Lombardo recounted that "they were in my face yelling profanities and pointing weapons," and said, "We were outgunned, outmanned, and there would not have been a Happy Ending result from it." Basically, the BLM, The State, The County Sheriff and Police were outnumbered Ten to One. There where thousands upon thousands of protestors lining the over passes with High Powered Rifles with lasers all pointed at the chest of Law Enforcement. A photojournalist for Reuters wrote that armed supporters had "taken up tactical positions on government officers," and that one man pointing a rifle in the direction of BLM employees said, "I've got a clear shot at four of them." Another man said, "I'm ready to pull the trigger if fired upon. I called it a Mexican stand off where two hombre’s pointed a Gun at each others head and dared the other to pull the trigger. Shit was about to hit the fan.Las Vegas Metro Deputy Chief Tom Roberts defused the situation by announcing that Bundy's cattle would be returned within 30 minutes. The BLM announced that it would suspend the mass roundup, citing safety reasons. Clark County Sheriff Gillespie mediated the agreement between the Bundy family and the BLM, saying, "When a group of protesters threaten civil unrest or violence in this county -- it is my job to step in and ensure the safety of citizens." What he actually meant was we were about to get our clocks cleaned and we thought it was time to get out of Dodge. BLM Director Neil Kornze said that "Based on information about conditions on the ground, and in consultation with law enforcement, we have made a decision to conclude the cattle gather because of our serious concern about the safety of employees and members of the public." The interpretation of that statement was “We were about to get blown into the next County and we decided to get the fuck out of here before the shooting started.”The end results is Bundy is still grazing his Cattle, the Park Service has now armed it’s members and hundreds of Federal Employee’s including the FBI had to change their shorts. They indeed were out gunned. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is for citizens to stand up against a corrupt Government.On August 9, 2018, Rick Lovelien and Steven Stewart filed a $60 million lawsuit in United States district court in Washington, D.C.. Named as defendants are Las Vegas prosecutors Steven Myhre, Daniel Schiess and Nadia Ahmed along with former FBI Director James Comey, former Director of the Bureau of Land Management Neil Kornze and the agencies of the FBI and BLM. On October 31, 2018, Ryan Bundy filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in United States district court in Washington D.C. Named as defendants are the former United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions, former attorney generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, former FBI director James Comey and former BLM director Neil Kornze “ again, I quote Wikipedia. The results of these lawsuits may not be known for years, but the standoff of Federal Agents will long be remembered in the hearts of Thousands of Citizens that took aim at an over reach of the United States Government.I talked to one Federal Agent (now retired) and he told me his entire chest was covered with little red dots from high powered riffles. He said if anyone had blinked, it would have been the biggest massacre of Federal Agents since they took out Custer and 800 of his soldiers. They got over Custer, but they would have never got over this one and it would have taken years to confine the uprising and Civil Disobedience to retain control. Right or Wrong, this is what happens when Governments run amuck.A footnote; After the Battle of the Little Bighorn and the killing of General Custer, the Federal Government took away Guns from the Indians and banned Alcohol. I guess they were worried they might get their ass kicked again. So never let the bastards take your guns. Ever been to an Indian Casino? Guess the Indians got even after all.

Well, first, as to the article cited: it is a tremendously biased and negative article, where the author suggests that the NRA is “f**king it all up” because the NRA sued. Even if the NRA did not sue (to get an injunction, or to overturn a part of the law, or to ask to overturn the law in its entirety), someone else would have as soon as the law was applied to them (and as soon as they could demonstrate harm and standing before a court).That is how our system works. We have branches of government. There are issues with how this works, and currently government in the U.S.A. is in a state of quasi-permanent dysfunction. But what does work are the checks and balances. The judicial branch can check the states or Congress (challenge their laws). The Congress can pass new laws, thus serving as a check on the judicial branch and on the executive. The Executive branch also has authority, some say the courts have granted the executive too much deference. But they all check each other. That is supposed to happen.Now, will the NRA win? The only answer here is “maybe in a few years,” and that is optimistic. Whatever the outcome, the losing side appeals. Then eventually appeals put the case as a candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court, which can accept cert and schedule or can refuse to consider. While many initiatives are overturned, it is totally up to the U.S. Supreme Court in cases where a party wishes to appeal to that level. Most cases don't make it there, and if they don't, a lower court decision holds and some other person might later bring a different case on the matter.It is too easy for State legislatures to pass questionable laws, or for voters to do the same by ballot proposition (or for the same thing to happen by initiative -- such as the Washington initiative -- as one commenter on this answer has pointed out). Thankfully the courts are there to sort it out.Some references will be added below on court processes and precedents you may wish to read up on — technical reading for those who follow and wish to try to understand the history of decision-making in the courts on the subject.References for further reading (note that it is likely that the California oriented cases will be decided on at the U.S. Supreme Court long before any Washington or Oregon case on the subject will, thus a U.S. Supreme Court decision against a California law would create a precedent which would effectively block the application of similar laws in Washington, Oregon, or any other state):The U.S. Supreme Court, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Colin Gallagher's answer to Why do so many people have so much confusion about how the 14th Amendment has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court?The U.S. Supreme Court’s request on Rothery v. Blanas, with references to Nichols v. Brown and Young v. Hawaii: Colin Gallagher's answer to Why is the Rothery v. Blanas case (where the petitioners have asked for U.S. Supreme Court review) particularly significant?On Unconstitutional Age-Based Prohibitions of Ownership Currently Existing as California State Laws: Colin Gallagher's answer to Why did California Dems just sign into law SB 1100 (2018), which would force a 20 year old man or woman to wait weeks (until she or he can secure a hunting license, unrelated to self defense) before buying a weapon, despite clearing background?How Many Gun Laws Have Been Passed and Signed into Law in California over the past few years? Colin Gallagher's answer to How many California state gun control bills were passed and signed into law from January 2000 through September 2017, and how many more have been passed by the end of September 2018?Note: I am not a lawyer. This answer is not a substitute for professional legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. It is for educational purposes only. Thank you for reading and answering on Quora.