Support NeoGAF

[cartoon_soldier]

Those Scotusblog updates sound ridiculous. If they're going to dismiss it couldn't they have just not taken it up in the first place? Doesn't that mean they want a ruling on it once and for all? /typicalrocketscientistpostwithnoknowledgeofthesubject

No, they still many times choose to hear the case. They heard the ACA case with the first argument being about whether the anti-injunction law applies to it or not.

Plus, all we have heard is Kennedy is uncomfortable with ruling.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Only takes four justices to hear a case, but takes five to rule. The Roberts Court has been doing wide-ranging grants on these topics for just this reason. They explicitly granted the question, basically, of whether they should rule on this case at all, in order to give them an escape hatch in the event that they decided they shouldn't have heard it in the first place. You might observe that that's bizarrely political and confusing for a theoretically nonpartisan body, and you'd be right. I get the impression that Roberts is VERY concerned about his legacy.

Took the words from my mouth with the second part. Thanks for the info.

 

[dvolovets]

Arguments done. #scotus won’t uphold or strike down #prop8 bc Kennedy thinks it is too soon to rule on #ssm. #prop8 will stay invalidated.

:\

 

[Oblivion]

Wait, are we supposed to get a ruling today?

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Wait, are we supposed to get a ruling today?

No, we still have the DOMA case tomorrow.

Ruling is generally in Summer.

If there is no majority ruling on Prop8, it is "stuck down" by the fact that the 9th circuit court struck it down and their ruling stands.

 

[Oblivion]

No, we still have the DOMA case tomorrow.

Ruling is generally in Summer.

If there is no majority ruling on Prop8, it is "stuck down" by the fact that the 9th circuit court struck it down and their ruling stands.

Summer?! Damn, that's quite a while away then...

 

[GhaleonEB]

Summer?! Damn, that's quite a while away then...

We'll see a ruling in June, IIRC. Might be July. Not long in the scheme of things.

 

[Tamanon]

Just remember to wait 10 minutes from when CNN announces it to get the real decision.

 

[el retorno]

:\

Why is it "too early?"

Do they get 14th amendment protection or not?
I can understand if they dismiss on the Prop 8 people not having standing but if that's a reason its absurd.

 

[pigeon]

:\

SCOTUS can still pretty safely strike down Prop 8 and DOMA without actually ruling for a fundamental right to SSM. This would put us in a state-by-state resolution situation.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

SCOTUS can still pretty safely strike down Prop 8 and DOMA without actually ruling for a fundamental right to SSM. This would put us in a state-by-state resolution situation.

I am pretty sure they won't rule in favor of SSM, all the rulings will be limited to the cases/states.

 

[dvolovets]

SCOTUS can still pretty safely strike down Prop 8 and DOMA without actually ruling for a fundamental right to SSM. This would put us in a state-by-state resolution situation.

That just seems to be a half-ass solution, though. I mean, it's obviously better than nothing, but I really wish they would go all the way instead of just falling back on the "it's too early to rule on SSM" argument. When is it not going to be too early?

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

:

What does that mean? What is too early? Fucking conservative justices...

 

[Sirpopopop]

Those Scotusblog updates sound ridiculous. If they're going to dismiss it couldn't they have just not taken it up in the first place? Doesn't that mean they want a ruling on it once and for all? /typicalrocketscientistpostwithnoknowledgeofthesubject

The one thing you can count on Roberts to do is strengthen the standing doctrine.

That's really his true ideological legacy - making it harder for you to have your day in court.

 

[Hitokage]

How exactly can Prop 8 be struck down while also claiming that it be left to the states?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I am going to be bummed if this merely gets dismissed.

 

[rocketknight]

How exactly can Prop 8 be struck down while also claiming that it be left to the states?

By saying you can't take away rights you've previously extended.

 

[Link]

That just seems to be a half-ass solution, though. I mean, it's obviously better than nothing, but I really wish they would go all the way instead of just falling back on the "it's too early to rule on SSM" argument. When is it not going to be too early?

The same time it's ok to talk about gun control, apparently.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I am going to be bummed if this merely gets dismissed.

There is still the doma case tomorrow which I believe has no issues on standing.

 

[Chichikov]

The one thing you can count on Roberts to do is strengthen the standing doctrine.

That's really his true ideological legacy - making it harder for you to have your day in court.

And what a terrible legacy that is.
But I guess that's what you get for entrusting such decisions to lawyers.
When you're being taught to put procedure and order above justice and the common good as effectively as law schools do, it can be a hard habit to break.

 

[el retorno]

SCOTUS can still pretty safely strike down Prop 8 and DOMA without actually ruling for a fundamental right to SSM.This would put us in a state-by-state resolution situation.

Could a DOMA ruling force states to recognize other states gay marriages?

It'd be better than nothing.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

There is still the doma case tomorrow which I believe has no issues on standing.

True. I suppose I'm taking that for granted.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Could a DOMA ruling force states to recognize other states gay marriages?

It'd be better than nothing.

If its struck down does that mean that the federal government will finally recognize same sex marriage licenses?

 

[el retorno]

If its struck down does that mean that the federal government will finally recognize same sex marriage licenses?

It would give them federal benefits, not state benefits where its not legal and wouldn't force them to adopt same sex marriages.

At least that's my understanding

 

[pigeon]

How exactly can Prop 8 be struck down while also claiming that it be left to the states?

In addition to the narrow ruling people are noting, SCOTUS could dismiss the case, which would drop us back to one of the two rulings that have already struck down Prop 8, but without national force.

 

[Particle Physicist]

It would give them federal benefits, not state benefits where its not legal and wouldn't force them to adopt same sex marriages.

At least that's my understanding

Okay, that is a pretty good step though. My cousin was married in Mass, but now lives in Florida, so that is a bit of good news for her and her wife. Assuming DOMA is struck down, that is.

 

[el retorno]

Okay, that is a pretty good step though. My cousin was married in Mass, but now lives in Florida, so that is a bit of good news for her and her wife. Assuming DOMA is struck down, that is.

Yea I think they could get federal benefits but not Florida marriage benefits

 

[pigeon]

Could a DOMA ruling force states to recognize other states gay marriages?

It'd be better than nothing.

I think so? I mean, that particular aspect of DOMA seems like a slam dunk to me. Obviously it's a comity violation. If there's a decent ruling on DOMA, the outcome would probably be that states can recognize gay marriage, and the feds recognize that, and other states have to acknowledge it, but they can also ban people getting married there. Which isn't that huge a barrier, really, although it obviously sucks.

 

[B-Dubs]

Could a DOMA ruling force states to recognize other states gay marriages?

It'd be better than nothing.

If its struck down does that mean that the federal government will finally recognize same sex marriage licenses?

These are pretty much the point of the case. At the very least, if we get a favorable ruling, they will force states and the federal government to recognize gay marriages done in states where it is legal.

 

[el retorno]

I think so? I mean, that particular aspect of DOMA seems like a slam dunk to me. Obviously it's a comity violation. If there's a decent ruling on DOMA, the outcome would probably be that states can recognize gay marriage, and the feds recognize that, and other states have to acknowledge it, but they can also ban people getting married there. Which isn't that huge a barrier, really, although it obviously sucks.

This is the problem I think that crops up on that:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

I think if that point gets brought up it will be argued its congress' right to define how marriages cross states lines and if gay marriages are the same as heterosexual ones.

I'm not even sure if that part of the law is being challenged because the people fighting DOMA are in states where there is Gay Marriage. I think you'd have to see a situation where someone moves to challenge that.
There might be one in the future
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act#Full_faith_and_credit_cases

 

[User 406]

By saying you can't take away rights you've previously extended.

But that doesn't make any sense either. There are all kinds of odious "rights" that could be enabled by legislation or constitutional amendment within a state, but that doesn't mean that correcting the mistake later shouldn't be possible because "no take-backs". It seems like a really weak reason.

 

[el retorno]

But that doesn't make any sense either. There are all kinds of odious "rights" that could be enabled by legislation or constitutional amendment within a state, but that doesn't mean that correcting the mistake later shouldn't be possible because "no take-backs". It seems like a really weak reason.

I think it has something to do with California's Constitution as well. Not sure.

 

[Aaron Strife]

1st update:

Figures kennedy would fucking punt. What a coward.

"Too soon" to rule on something, what the hell?

 

[B-Dubs]

Figures kennedy would fucking punt. What a coward.

"Too soon" to rule on something, what the hell?

Christ, hopefully someone slaps some sense into him. It looks like if they do rule on it then Roberts will be the deciding vote again.

 

[Oblivion]

What the fuck is wrong with these people?

Breitbart.com writer Matt Boyle reported on the specific location where President Obama's teenage daughters are vacationing for spring break, ignoring the decades-old journalistic tradition that media outlets should not report on a president's minor children when they are not attending "official or semi-official events" for privacy and security reasons.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/25/breitbarts-matt-boyle-disregards-security-conce/193230

What possible value does this have? Fucking scumbags.

 

[B-Dubs]

What the fuck is wrong with these people?



http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/25/breitbarts-matt-boyle-disregards-security-conce/193230

What possible value does this have? Fucking scumbags.

This isn't only stupid on his part, but also on his editor's part. There is nothing newsworthy about this.

 

[789shadow]

What a great time for Kennedy to be a cowering sack of shit.

 

[PhoenixDark]

This isn't only stupid on his part, but also on his editor's part. There is nothing newsworthy about this.

There is if your goal is to show the alleged excessive spending if the first family, how Obama lives like a king, etc.

 

[FLEABttn]

Alito is killing me here.

Justice Samuel Alito said the law on same-sex marriage is too new.

"There isn't a lot of data on its effect" on children and the institution of marriage, he said.

Because gay people have been historically prohibited from marrying!

 

[Pickles the Firecat]

I just found out that Chris Hayes is replacing Ed Schultz on weekdays. I might explode from happiness. Please let there be a podcast, finally.

 

[Fenderputty]

Alito is killing me here.



Because gay people have been historically prohibited from marrying!

I don't understand how it's affects on children has anything to do with the constitutionality of SSM.

 

[B-Dubs]

There is if your goal is to show the alleged excessive spending if the first family, how Obama lives like a king, etc.

There are better ways to do that, this is nothing more than a cheap shot. Don't try and justify it. There's an unspoken rule that we leave the kids alone, especially when they're minors and off doing their own thing.

Alito is killing me here.



Because gay people have been historically prohibited from marrying!

He was never going to rule in our favor, he just doesn't want the case at all.

 

[Hop]

There is if your goal is to show the alleged excessive spending if the first family, how Obama lives like a king, etc.

Or if you want to get attacked over something you can then describe to your supporters as innocuous so as to engender even stronger support in your "fight" against an "odious" government, as they'd be completely oblivious to decorum and perpetuating said "fight" happens to do wonders for your fiscal scenario.



....Jackson hasn't posted in a while, I miss the big words.

 

[FLEABttn]

I don't understand how it's affects on children has anything to do with the constitutionality of SSM.

something something it's not a right if it harms children something something poor comparison made to yelling fire in a crowded theater something something

I agree with you.

He was never going to rule in our favor, he just doesn't want the case at all.

I know but the mental gymnastics kills me.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'm not defending their decision to publish the article, just saying they clearly did it for a reason: to continue the narrative of excessive personal spending on the first family. Because vacations are only alright when a republican president is in the White House.

It's worth remembering Brietbert's site has nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with expressing anger and an inferiority complex. The typical "mainstream media" approach to this is not to report on the children of any president. To Brietbart that's a media coverup worthy of being blown up in the most tacky fashion possible. I'm not going to get mad at people who are that pathetic. Obama's daughters are safe regardless of this story.

 

[rocketknight]

Seriously, people, it's too soon!

The 1967 Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia ended all restrictions on interracial marriage in the United States. But a Gallup poll a year later in 1968 showed that only 20 percent of Americans supported marriage between whites and black; 73 percent opposed

Note that a plurality did not support interracial marriage until 1991, almost 25 years after Loving v. Virginia was decided, and it was another six years until there was an actual majority!

 

[TacticalFox88]

Seriously, people, it's too soon!

I forgot how retarded this country has been in the past, present, and will continue to be in the future.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Mike Huckabee warns that Republicans risk losing the vote from evangelical Christians if they back away from their opposition to gay marriage.

Last week, Ohio Sen. Bob Portman announced he has reversed his position and now supports gay marriage.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV, former Arkansas Gov. Huckabee — and ordained Southern Baptist minister — was asked if he sees the GOP ever pivoting and backing gay marriage.


“They might. And if they do, they’re going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk,” he responds.

“And it’s not because there’s an anti-homosexual mood, and nobody’s homophobic that I know of, but many of us, and I consider myself included, base our standards not on the latest Washington Post poll, but on an objective standard, not a subjective standard.

Story continues below the video.

“I have great sympathy and extraordinary admiration for Sen. Portman. I consider him a friend and I value his work in the Senate and think he’s a great person. The mistake is that we sometimes base our public policy decisions on how we feel, how we think, maybe even some personal experiences, and we don’t regard a lot of these issues from the standpoint of an objective standard.

“Let me explain what I mean by that. If we have subjective standards, that means that we’re willing to move our standards based on the prevailing whims of culture. Politicians have an obligation to be thermostats, not just thermometers. They’re not simply to reflect the temperature of the room, or the culture, as it were. They’re to set the standards for law, for what’s right, for what’s wrong, understanding that not everybody’s going to agree with it.

“On this issue, I recognize the culture is moving away from the traditional standard, but it’s almost like saying, well, we have a basketball team and nobody on the team can hit the goal that’s 10 feet off the floor so we’re going to lower the goal down to six feet and that way everybody can slam dunk the ball.

“So the question is, have you have improved your basketball game? Or have you actually just changed the standard so it looks like you’re doing better? And that’s my concern.”

All that's wrong with the anti-marriage equality movement in a couple paragraphs.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Kind of random aside:

Why exactly is there outrage over the White House cancelling tours? I though the right wing was all for spending cuts.

 

[Father_Brain]

Could a DOMA ruling force states to recognize other states gay marriages?

It'd be better than nothing.

No. The Windsor case being heard tomorrow only concerns Section 3 of DOMA, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, not Section 2, which allows states to refuse to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages. There has yet to be a serious court challenge to Section 2, AFAIK, though one is probably inevitable if we don't get a 50-state outcome from the Perry case.