SCOTUS Takes Up Gay Marriage

Ok so it looks like one way or another there is going to be some sort of decision on the hotest of hot button issues.

I am curious, for those who understand the court and its proceedure (and anyone else really) what you think the outcome will be in terms of affect.

Will they modify the ideas of DOMA or throw it out all together. Will they use Prop 8 as a tool to undermine all prior votes on state sponsored Gay Marriage or will it curb its ruling to affect only California.

One way or the other I am just happy that there will be some action taken on this issue. Don't get me wrong, I support individual liberties and equal rights for everyone. But there comes a time when a matter is ready to be determined. Are we a nation ready to move forward or are we trully still held back by conflicted religious morals.

Edit: forgot to link the story
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/07/us/court-marriage/index.html?hpt=po_c1
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/07/15756101-us-supreme-court-to-take-up-same-sex-marriage-issue?lite

even fox news finally got in on it
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/07/supreme-court-will-hear-gay-marriage-cases/

Neat! Will that be the end of the discussion, or will we expect to see appeals after the sentence is made?

I expect DOMA may be overturned in some way. It seems like it's the federal government encroaching on the constitutional powers of states regarding marriage law, which may persuade some of the more conservative judges to our side on that issue. I think prop 8 will stand as it was democratically voted in and is state level legislation.

TheIronRuler:
Neat! Will that be the end of the discussion, or will we expect to see appeals after the sentence is made?

Technically, there are no appeals from the US Supreme Court, although there are still avenues for activists to use.

The standard and most direct one is a Constitutional Amendment, but, much like the Equal Rights Amendment, getting that 33rd state is a very difficult fight, regardless of side, and has only gotten more difficult in the last few years for the anti-Gay-marriage crowd.

The secondary one is, if the court upholds Gay marriage bans as constitutional, the current strategy of legalizing it state-by-state would be the most effective route.

Then there's the "waiting game," which can pretty much only be used by the pro-gay-marriage crowd. It's quite simply waiting for certain justices to retire (the key ones being Scalia and Thomas) and having them replaced with more friendly justices who, in time, eventually become part of a majority on the subject. This tactic has been used relatively successfully by the US pro-life movement (until base elements started to get impatient and started to propose legislation that would ban birth control).

DOMA will die, the President has already stated that his administration won't even try to defend it. Prop 8 will be ruled discriminatory. While not outright legalising same sex marriage across the country, the Full Faith and Credit Clause means that a marriage that takes place in any state must be recognised in all states, thus de facto legalising it nationwide. The Republicans will complain about "activist judges" for a while, but life will otherwise continue on as normal.

Revnak:
I expect DOMA may be overturned in some way. It seems like it's the federal government encroaching on the constitutional powers of states regarding marriage law, which may persuade some of the more conservative judges to our side on that issue. I think prop 8 will stand as it was democratically voted in and is state level legislation.

Considering the Court's history of slowly eroding state power, I doubt that will be the rationale. If it's thrown out, it'll probably be under the 14th Amendment. I predict a 5-4 split against DOMA. MAYBE a 6-3 or 7-2 split with a concurring opinion highlighting state power, but I can't imagine someone citing state power being willing to throw their weight in with something that erodes that power, even if it meets a common end.

LetalisK:

Revnak:
I expect DOMA may be overturned in some way. It seems like it's the federal government encroaching on the constitutional powers of states regarding marriage law, which may persuade some of the more conservative judges to our side on that issue. I think prop 8 will stand as it was democratically voted in and is state level legislation.

Considering the Court's history of slowly eroding state power, I doubt that will be the rationale. If it's thrown out, it'll probably be under the 14th Amendment. I predict a 5-4 split against DOMA. MAYBE a 6-3 or 7-2 split with a concurring opinion highlighting state power, but I can't imagine someone citing state power being willing to throw their weight in with something that erodes that power, even if it meets a common end.

States don't necessarily have specific powers regarding marriage as a whole, unde the 10th amendment those rights not guided by the federal government falls to the states. Traditionaly that has included marriage and with very few exceptions the USSC has continued that trend.

It seems most people believe DOMA to be doomed and that seems likely from my take as well. The $300,000 tax bill for being gay seemed to be a pretty solid deathknell but you can never be too sure, look at how the Affordable Care Act challenges went.

sinsfire:
It seems most people believe DOMA to be doomed and that seems likely from my take as well. The $300,000 tax bill for being gay seemed to be a pretty solid deathknell but you can never be too sure, look at how the Affordable Care Act challenges went.

I think we can be pretty sure on this. It is still a court, with lawyers and the like.

Opening statements:
Plaintiff: "This is an unjust law, blah blah blah blah blah..."

Defendant: "S/He's right, this law is awful. We're not defending it."

Yeah, how do you think that's going to go?

I think it'll probably be another 5-4 decision, against DOMA, but I could actually see Chief Justice Roberts swinging the other way to a 6-3 decision.

Aris Khandr:

sinsfire:
It seems most people believe DOMA to be doomed and that seems likely from my take as well. The $300,000 tax bill for being gay seemed to be a pretty solid deathknell but you can never be too sure, look at how the Affordable Care Act challenges went.

I think we can be pretty sure on this. It is still a court, with lawyers and the like.

Opening statements:
Plaintiff: "This is an unjust law, blah blah blah blah blah..."

Defendant: "S/He's right, this law is awful. We're not defending it."

Yeah, how do you think that's going to go?

Well, it's a US appellate court, so it's usually just two 30 minute arguments between the petitioner and the respondent, with maybe some time for an amicus brief (although an Amicus argument for the respondent is likely going to be the bulk of the respondent's time in this case).

I'm not really sure. I'd be inclined to think that the Supreme Court isn't going to keep DOMA, just because it does not seem like the Federal Government has that kind of power.

Just reading, very, very casually over what's likely to go down, it looks like they're challenging it on this section 3 business:

Section 3: In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Section 3 has apparently been found unconstitutional 8 times in Federal courts... So, I imagine it'll be dead on arrival?

Revnak:
I think prop 8 will stand as it was democratically voted in and is state level legislation.

Except:

* It's been shot down at every lower court level consistently using legal precedent and logic.
* The Supreme Court was created to prevent democratically laws from taking effect if they were unconstitional, so the fact that 1% of California (yes, it really was that close) was in favour of it is entirelly irrelevant
* The previous courts all ruled that Prop 8 was unconstintional because it was taking away rights, as Gay Marriage was a legal right for the six months prior to Prop 8.
* The State of California has consistently refused to defend Prop 8, so it's being defended by private groups who have consistently failed to make a legal argument as to why it's constitional to revoke civil rights.

So really the fact that it was voted in is irrelevant; the Founding Fathers put in a lot of safe guards to prevent exactly that (including one of them saying "Democracy is 51% of the population using the law to opress the other 49%" or thereabouts), and the Supreme Court has struck down voted in and popular positions before because they were unconstitional. So it makes the people who are backing Prop 8 look downright stupid when they say "We believe the Supreme Court will agree that it's the People who are the ultimate power on law," since no, it's the SC who are the ultimate authority on the law.

That it's a state-level piece of legislation is also irrelevant, as the Supreme Court could have simply refused to hear the case (which would have kept the last ruling of it being legal in the State of California and nowhere else). By hearing it there are a few outcomes that could happen:

* The Supreme Court rules that the House Republicans and the private interest groups have not argued that they have the legal authority to to make the case (or whatever the word for the one who defends DOMA/Prop 8) and throw out the entire case. This could happen, as technically it's up to the Federal Goverment to defend DOMA, and they've exercised their right to refuse, and it's up to the State of California to defend it's ammendments, and they've exercised their right to refuse to defend it.
* The Supreme Court could rule Gay Marriage is unconstitional country wide (the odds of this happening are exactly 0, as it would be an incredibly sweeping and broad statement, the Socially Liberally judges would never agree to such a thing and the politically conservative judges would never make such a bold move of trampling State Rights).
* The Supreme Court upholds the right of voters in California to pass amendments to take away Civil Rights (highly unlikely, as it would be against the spirit and letter of both the Californian and US constitional amendments on Equal Rights). Note that even in this case anyone married before Prop 8 was passed would still be married, due to the burracratic nightmare that would ensue of effectively divorcing thousands of people and how that retroactively applied to those five years where it was legal (not to mention addittional lawsuits dragging this issue out for another 5 years).
* The Supreme Court upholds the lower courts decision to thow out Prop 8, and that's it. That would mean that Gay Marriage would be legal in California from the time the verdict was handed down (or after whatever deadline the SC sets), but would also mean that the SC' decision is entirely confined to the State of California. This is the most probable outcome as it's upholding the legal arguments that were made in the lower levels.
* The Supreme Court agrees that Prop 8 is unconstitional, and either concludes that any such ban on Gay Marriage is unconstitional no matter the circumstances or that Gay Couples do have a right to get married, which would legalise it nation-wide. This is less likely as it's a very sweeping decision, but it's not unprecidented in a global sense; that was how Gay Marriage was legalised in Canada, and the Supreme Court is allowed to look anywhere they want for research.

Shaoken:
* The Supreme Court upholds the lower courts decision to thow out Prop 8, and that's it. That would mean that Gay Marriage would be legal in California from the time the verdict was handed down (or after whatever deadline the SC sets), but would also mean that the SC' decision is entirely confined to the State of California. This is the most probable outcome as it's upholding the legal arguments that were made in the lower levels.

While this is the most likely outcome (though DOMA will be dead, too), the Full Faith and Credit Clause will make this ruling a de factro legalisation of marriage throughout the nation. Yes, it will still be up to individual states to legalise it on their own, but when gays can go to Maine or Washington or California, get married, and bring all the rights that come with it back to their home states, the states may as well just get it over with.

Aris Khandr:
DOMA will die, the President has already stated that his administration won't even try to defend it. Prop 8 will be ruled discriminatory. While not outright legalising same sex marriage across the country, the Full Faith and Credit Clause means that a marriage that takes place in any state must be recognised in all states, thus de facto legalising it nationwide. The Republicans will complain about "activist judges" for a while, but life will otherwise continue on as normal.

This is largely correct. Anytime I've even heard of challenges to gay marriage, they were half hearted in the court, arguing without much credible evidence that a straight married couple offers the best up bringing for kids and should be supported. I doubt the current government will do even that much.

I'd like to complain about activist judges, but in this case, what are they supposed to do if there is no one really even making the traditionalist argument?

Also, when the elite want something they usually get it. One way is to state that what they want is the direction the country is heading anyway, even if there is a reasonable argument is that, if the country is headed one way or another, they don't need a court to enforce an idea on the rest of the nation. Death Penalty jurisprudence often works that way. The Elite don't want it. If 8 states are against the death penalty for, say, those under 18, and that moves to 9, the court can see that as an instruction to make it so for the other 41.

Use those type of numbers on gay marriage and the growing number of states accepting it. It will happen.

The Gentleman:

TheIronRuler:
Neat! Will that be the end of the discussion, or will we expect to see appeals after the sentence is made?

Technically, there are no appeals from the US Supreme Court, although there are still avenues for activists to use.

The standard and most direct one is a Constitutional Amendment, but, much like the Equal Rights Amendment, getting that 33rd state is a very difficult fight, regardless of side, and has only gotten more difficult in the last few years for the anti-Gay-marriage crowd.

The secondary one is, if the court upholds Gay marriage bans as constitutional, the current strategy of legalizing it state-by-state would be the most effective route.

Then there's the "waiting game," which can pretty much only be used by the pro-gay-marriage crowd. It's quite simply waiting for certain justices to retire (the key ones being Scalia and Thomas) and having them replaced with more friendly justices who, in time, eventually become part of a majority on the subject. This tactic has been used relatively successfully by the US pro-life movement (until base elements started to get impatient and started to propose legislation that would ban birth control).

.
Awesome. Thanks for explaining this to me, you were very helpful!

sinsfire:

LetalisK:

Revnak:
I expect DOMA may be overturned in some way. It seems like it's the federal government encroaching on the constitutional powers of states regarding marriage law, which may persuade some of the more conservative judges to our side on that issue. I think prop 8 will stand as it was democratically voted in and is state level legislation.

Considering the Court's history of slowly eroding state power, I doubt that will be the rationale. If it's thrown out, it'll probably be under the 14th Amendment. I predict a 5-4 split against DOMA. MAYBE a 6-3 or 7-2 split with a concurring opinion highlighting state power, but I can't imagine someone citing state power being willing to throw their weight in with something that erodes that power, even if it meets a common end.

States don't necessarily have specific powers regarding marriage as a whole, under the 10th amendment those rights not guided by the federal government falls to the states. Traditionally that has included marriage and with very few exceptions the USSC has continued that trend.

It seems most people believe DOMA to be doomed and that seems likely from my take as well. The $300,000 tax bill for being gay seemed to be a pretty solid deathknell but you can never be too sure, look at how the Affordable Care Act challenges went.

This isn't a reply specifically to you, but you were the first of many with this sentiment.

I believe it to be wildly optimistic and a bit foolish. Am I saying that without a doubt you're wrong and DOMA will continue? No. But I have little faith in the idea that the Supreme Court will come together in unity on this, with the socially left judges voting in favor of gay marriage and the socially right judges voting in favor of State's rights, them caught together in some sort of grim embrace forced there by bizarre circumstances to kiss and make up.

See, to the 'States Rights' crowd, discrimination isn't an accidental and unfortunate byproduct on the path to giving rights to the common man, like they want to portray it as. Rather, State's rights are a vehicle they have chosen to decentralize power making it easier for them to discriminate. And it traditionally has been.

You have to realize that the right passed DOMA in the first place, despite it being clearly against the ideal of 'State's Rights'. They sure as hell didn't seem to mind overriding the State's right to marry their own citizens how that State wanted when the States decided it wanted to have gay marriage. They only championed on about the State's right when it was the States that were more conservative than the median population when it came to banning interracial marriage or when the states tried to ban desegregation or whatever.

State's rights have pretty much forever been nothing more than a vehicle to break up the country into dividable parts so that states like Mississippi can be terrible without being influenced by states that grew the fuck up. That's why those very same states are trying so hard to get the Supreme Court to throw out the laws governing how they make their election laws the goddamn minute those laws kept those states from disenfranchising black people in 2012. They try to make the argument we're beyond need for that in the year they're trying to pass laws proving we're not beyond that shit a bit.

I know exactly how this will play out. The vote will go directly on social ideological divides. Antonin Scalia and his guys will predictably pretend like giving States the right to do something they don't like, like marrying gay people will be a big affront to State's rights because they have no sense of fucking irony.

I bet Roberts might choose now to cash in favor with the left he had by siding with them on an issue that the right and insurance companies backed anyways when it was their man signing the law.

If they seem like they're likely to lose the overall vote, they'll fight to basically try to rule as narrowly as possible to only California, because, again State's rights only matters if you're winning and getting what you want. I doubt they'll even look at DOMA if they can help it, if they think they're going to lose.

The reason they probably even agreed to hear the case at all when doing nothing would ensure that California's decisions stay in California is just because they're probably afraid that if they don't slam on it now while they have a majority that some of them might be forced to retire under Obama's watch.

TheIronRuler:
Neat! Will that be the end of the discussion, or will we expect to see appeals after the sentence is made?

Ahaha. Oh, bless your little cotton socks. Considering that there are still people who argue that slavery should never have been abolished, this argument is not going to stop for a very, very long time regardless of whatever decision is made.

Given that much of the opposition is rooted in religious dogma, which is notorious for not being very up-to-date, I imagine there will be some people who are never able to accept that gay marriage is allowed and will keep trying to challenge it.

Damien Granz:
Snip

Sorry I have to snip this since it is getting a bit long. You do make some valid points and I am not at all trying to guarantee some sort of run away on this one. Much like the affordable care act this will probably come down to the wire on several issues.

First off, DOMA, the court has agreed to evaluate it, so they have to look at it. DOMA was pushed through by a conservative legislature but was signed by Bill Clinton. It was not his proudest day but he needed to sign it for horse trading purposes. He could have vetoed it and there would not have been the 67 votes needed to overturn the veto, but he needed to give the republicans something so he could build clout in the senate.

The court has already asked the sides to brief on standing (although this is most likely a non-issue on DOMA) as well as the conflict between states rights and federal rights. The interesting thing here is that when originally signed DOMA was a pre-emptive reaction to Hawaii possibly leagalizing gay marriage (which they didn't). This fight would have happened a lot sooner had more states leaglaized gay marriage sooner. On top of taxation issues there are also immigration issues for gay couples where one is not a legal US resident. Most likely the court will try to be as narrow as possible, but even if they find it constitutional the President can always choose not to defend it since he controls the AG.

On California, this really is an issue of states rights. The issue of standing is a bit more key here due to the AG already refusing and private citizens taking up the fight in favor of Prop 8. This is different from DOMA because DOMA is being represented by US congresmen who would presumably have more standing over laws they created than an average citizen.

California is also a bit different because it was first determined by a state court that gay people could get married, the vote on Prop 8 removed that right. Generally speaking a simple majority cannot infringe upon a right granted by the courts, especially not a constitution right on equal protection grounds. I think it is unlikely that the court will go full spectrum and attempt to apply any of the California determination to any other states, but it will be a jumping off point for other states to either create their own challenges through the judiciary or better tailor future USSC cases.

As far as your assertion on the judges, don't be too sure. Clarence Thomas will almost always follow Scalia, that is about the only guarantee. That could break this time though. Scalia is a big states rights fan, and while not a big fan of legislation by the judiciary, I think it is going to be hard for him to say that the original court erred in finding gay marriage to be a right within privacy and equal protection. I don't generaly agree with Scalia, and really I think he is a pompus ass, but he is smart and its going to be interesting to see him have to reconcile these two possitions.

SonicWaffle:

TheIronRuler:
Neat! Will that be the end of the discussion, or will we expect to see appeals after the sentence is made?

Ahaha. Oh, bless your little cotton socks. Considering that there are still people who argue that slavery should never have been abolished, this argument is not going to stop for a very, very long time regardless of whatever decision is made.

Given that much of the opposition is rooted in religious dogma, which is notorious for not being very up-to-date, I imagine there will be some people who are never able to accept that gay marriage is allowed and will keep trying to challenge it.

There's nowhere for these cases to appeal to after the Supreme Court rules on it. The Supreme Court is the final appeal you can get, so what they say is pretty much how it's gonna be, for this SPECIFIC case. THAT SAID, the Supreme Court ruling on it doesn't make the law go away, per say, it just sets a precedent for the lower courts to not uphold the law and for lawmakers to eventually get around to getting rid of the law, etc. The only CONCRETE end to discussion will be within these 2-3 SPECIFIC cases. The executive branch will tend to not prosecute cases that violate a law the Supreme Court frowned on because the executive branch and lower courts know that if they spend all this money prosecuting these cases, it's going to go to the Supreme Court and they're gonna rule the same way and waste everybody's time and money. That EFFECTIVELY kills the law, but doesn't end it in perpetuity.

So, none of this doesn't mean that someday 10 years from now somebody will pick up a dusty unenforced law saying that gay men burn at the stake and try to burn himself some gay men, and we start this process all over again, unless the legislature changes the law (which they may or may not, depending on if they care enough to). And it doesn't mean that the lower court won't find in favor of burning gay people, and that the case could be appealed up through the ranks back to the Supreme Court, and then that new, future court could totally change it's mind and decide that burning gay people at the stake is totally constitutionally valid.

Now, is that likely? Actually, sort of yes, in a sense. At least it would be likely if all activists and lawmakers said "Job, well done!" with this ruling (if it's in their favor) and basically vanished from the Earth. After all, the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was stolen property and not afforded rights. Things change, and I can't guarantee they do for the better without constant vigilance.

But for these SPECIFIC cases coming before the court, THEY will be done deals, period. There's nowhere else for the plaintiffs or defendants to appeal to. So in that sense, yes, the discussion will be done, full stop.

sinsfire:

Damien Granz:
Snip

Sorry I have to snip this since it is getting a bit long. You do make some valid points and I am not at all trying to guarantee some sort of run away on this one. Much like the affordable care act this will probably come down to the wire on several issues.

I'm only of the mind that the conservative court ruled in favor of the affordable care act in the first place for two reasons. One, they ruled in such a shitty way they basically gave the states a blank check for infinity dollars with no liability or obligations to do jack shit (the courts said that the Federal Government can't cut funding to the States if the States fail to meet obligations towards the Affordable Care Act basically setting it so that the States can wipe their asses with this money and the Federal Government can't ensure it's used to actually do anything useful, nor can they just decide to stop sending it), and because Insurance Companies and Political Conservatives wanted this more than anybody else (I think the act only really works as intended with a single payer options. Without that option it's basically the means for the rich to hose down the middle class for money again).

sinsfire:
First off, DOMA, the court has agreed to evaluate it, so they have to look at it. DOMA was pushed through by a conservative legislature but was signed by Bill Clinton. It was not his proudest day but he needed to sign it for horse trading purposes. He could have vetoed it and there would not have been the 67 votes needed to overturn the veto, but he needed to give the republicans something so he could build clout in the senate.

Which was approximately the last time giving Republicans a concession actually meant they'd do something back for you, yes. I know this.

But the court hasn't 'agreed' to rule on DOMA. They can narrowly define their ruling to this one case, if they want.

sinsfire:
The court has already asked the sides to brief on standing (although this is most likely a non-issue on DOMA) as well as the conflict between states rights and federal rights. The interesting thing here is that when originally signed DOMA was a preemptive reaction to Hawaii possibly legalizing gay marriage (which they didn't). This fight would have happened a lot sooner had more states legalized gay marriage sooner. On top of taxation issues there are also immigration issues for gay couples where one is not a legal US resident. Most likely the court will try to be as narrow as possible, but even if they find it constitutional the President can always choose not to defend it since he controls the AG.

That's kind of my point though, is these "State's Rights" guys kinda don't give a shit about say, Hawaii's right to marry gay people, when it's a right they don't like. They don't hold State's Rights to be supreme with discrimination to be an unfortunate side effect of that ideal, they want to discriminate and the fastest path to that is pretending to champion in favor of the rights of the individual States. I've never seen it done any other way. Not a single anti-gay social conservative that masturbates furiously to the idea of States being sovereign nations when they think it'll get them out of tax obligations or out of the obligation to educate black people stepped up to attack DOMA infringing on Massachusetts' rights to marry gay people.

It's because this whole argument about 'Big Government' or 'Small Government' is smoke and mirrors, to make them feel they're some sort of freedom fighter. They have no problem with big government when it involves telling a woman what to do with their reproductive organs or whatever.

I find the whole framing of this argument as 'Do you want States to have rights or not!' to be disingenuous at best, and I feel this case before the Supreme Court will be no different.

sinsfire:
On California, this really is an issue of states rights. The issue of standing is a bit more key here due to the AG already refusing and private citizens taking up the fight in favor of Prop 8. This is different from DOMA because DOMA is being represented by US congressmen who would presumably have more standing over laws they created than an average citizen.

California is also a bit different because it was first determined by a state court that gay people could get married, the vote on Prop 8 removed that right. Generally speaking a simple majority cannot infringe upon a right granted by the courts, especially not a constitution right on equal protection grounds. I think it is unlikely that the court will go full spectrum and attempt to apply any of the California determination to any other states, but it will be a jumping off point for other states to either create their own challenges through the judiciary or better tailor future USSC cases.

Can not? Or should not? The simple majority, in just this one case, has been infringing upon a right granted by the courts for 4 years. I see no reason that, if people allow it, they won't continue. So they very well CAN do whatever they want, and the law can say whatever it wants, and if the two don't meet up, and if nobody cares, then it won't matter. SHOULD the majority be able to infringe on a right granted by the courts like that? Probably not! But again, I think that saying it 'can't' is a bit foolish and sort of ignores pretty much the all of history that it has in various cases.

sinsfire:
As far as your assertion on the judges, don't be too sure. Clarence Thomas will almost always follow Scalia, that is about the only guarantee. That could break this time though. Scalia is a big states rights fan, and while not a big fan of legislation by the judiciary, I think it is going to be hard for him to say that the original court erred in finding gay marriage to be a right within privacy and equal protection. I don't generally agree with Scalia, and really I think he is a pompous ass, but he is smart and its going to be interesting to see him have to reconcile these two positions.

Scalia has many times before broken away from his supposed sacred vigil of the guardian of private and state rights when it comes to allowing him to hate and disenfranchise the proper people. That's my point. It won't be hard for him a bit, because you're assume he has to have logical integrity to swallow a bitter pill to stay consistent on things he said before. I don't hold him, or most people, in such high regard.

Again, that was the whole point of my previous post.

Damien Granz:
Scalia has many times before broken away from his supposed sacred vigil of the guardian of private and state rights when it comes to allowing him to hate and disenfranchise the proper people. That's my point. It won't be hard for him a bit, because you're assume he has to have logical integrity to swallow a bitter pill to stay consistent on things he said before. I don't hold him, or most people, in such high regard.

Again, that was the whole point of my previous post.

Scalia isn't even particularly concerned with state's rights. He considers himself an "originalist" and that the Constitution should be regarded within respects to the Founders' original intent. He pretty frequently manages to twist that in all sort of interesting ways, but that's where his true support lays. As the Founders didn't even conceptualize homosexuality the same way we do now, it's pretty much impossible to speculate their intent with any credibility. Won't stop Scalia from ruling, though.

Compared to say, Chief Justice Roberts, who is on record as saying that having "one particular judicial philosophy is too limiting". I could see something like Stevens, Ginsberg, or one of the liberal judges ruling for DOMA as a human rights issue, and Roberts writing a concurring opinion as a state's rights issue.

Damien Granz:
Snip.

You might be a bit to idealistic for this. I prefer not to think of the highest court in the land as some sort of vindictive soul crusing pile of crap. While I know the court has fractured in several different ways since Roberts and Alito were appointed I don't see the machine as brken. Less idealized maybe but not broken.

THe mojority of the high profile cases will always piss off one side or another. But there are a multitute of what seem like mundane cases which are resolved every year. I am pleased to see the court taking their time with less high profile cases that never the less do have an impact on our society.

Are they all gems, no, but there really haven't been any agreegious Conservative decisions to come out of the court in a very long time. Unless I have missed one or two (which is possible) EDIT: right forgot about citizens united, don't know what the fuck they were thinking there.

It is however slightly upsetting when people (not just you, others have been doing it too) disrespect the court simply because it hasn't gone their way. I have faith that legal reason will prevail, and that's just it, legal reason. Not moral or ethical or logical, legal reason. Sometimes decisions seem to not make sense but they are legally sound. As long as the court continues in this vein I have no problem with it. Because despite what you said above, while the court is the highest and there is no technical apeal, you can always just come back in a few years with a new plaintiff and try again on different or similar grounds. Or you can just write new laws.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked