Talk:Baker v. Nelson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

The "decision" of the U.S. Supreme Court expressly states that the Court was declining to review this case. Therefore, there is no Supreme Court decision. Of course, this is a notable state supreme court case, and should remain in Wikipedia, but it is by no means a U.S. Supreme Court case any more than the 5,000 or so other appeals the Supremes decline to review each year.  BD2412 talk 02:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, this was not a simple denial of certiorari, which would not have any precedential value. The case was summarily affirmed.

Upon review, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question." 409 U.S. 810 (1972).

Examining Precedent of the United States Supreme Court shows the clear and explicit directive that dismissals "for want of a substantial federal question" are binding precedents on all lower Federal Courts.

"[U]ntil the Supreme Court should instruct otherwise, inferior federal courts had best adhere to the view that the Court has branded a question as unsubstantial". Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344 (1975)

"[D]ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977).

Lower Federal Courts are expressely prohibited from ruling in a way inconsistant with binding precedent.

“[Summary Decisions] prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.” Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)

This is explicit not only in the holdings of the United States Supreme Court, but also the holdings of other Circuit Courts.

[L]ower courts are bound by summary decision by this Court ‘until such time as the Court informs [them] that [they] are not. Doe v. Hodgson, 478 F.2d 537, 539 (2nd Cir. 1973)

Baker is binding precedent and until overruled by the United States Supreme Court, it remains that way.

I am simply amazed that someone who claims to be an attorney, doesn't understand the precedential value of a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question.

You may not like the fact that Baker is settled law, but not liking that fact does not reality change. :)

BTW: Your Contention that Baker wasn't a decision on the merits is striking, especially considering that Judge Moody in Wilson V Ake stated expressly that Baker was a summary decision, and as such, binding. Judge Moody knows the difference between a denial of cert. and a dismissal for want of a substantial federal question.

Further, Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court also denies your contention that Baker isn't an established decision of the SCOTUS.

"[I]ndeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185), the decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal “for want of substantial federal question.” (Baker v. Nelson (1972) 409 U.S. 810.) As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that the lower court’s decision on the issues of federal law was correct. (Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v. Miranda (1975) 422 U.S. 332, 344.) Summary decisions of this kind “prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.” (Mandel v. Bradley, supra, at p. 176.) Thus, the high court’s summary decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, prevents lower courts and public officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution. The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until the high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 344.) That court may release lower courts from the binding effect of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling that decision or through “ ‘doctrinal developments’ ” that are necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at p. 344.) The United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision... Until the United States Supreme Court says otherwise, which it has not yet done, Baker v. Nelson defines federal constitutional law on the question whether a state may deny same-sex couples the right to marry." Lockyer V San Francisco (Kennard, J. Concurring and Dissenting) (Emphasis Added.)

Ok. BD2412 T 01:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand something: Doesn't the issue of whether or not a State law violates the Constitution of the United States qualify as a Federal Question? How can that issue not automatically constitute a Federal Question? (I graduated law school, but am not a practicing attorney). 66.108.105.21 16:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________________

I removed POV Commentary that doesn't pass legal muster. Baker is binding precedent. Court after Court has ruled such. The case law on Summary Decisions (Appeals dismissed for want of a Substantial Federal Question) is solid and clearly established. Those who favor Same-Sex Marriage may not like Baker, but it remains law UNLESS it's overruled. Ghostmonkey57 01:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57