Senate The Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Oct 9, 2011.

  1. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    You know, the first oral argument of the term? Yesterday morning? The titanic case with amicus briefs from both the United States and the United Kingdom? Also briefs by the Netherlands? Universities beyond count? Scholarly organizations beyond count? Genocide victims and international criminal law organizations? Former Secretaries of State? The International Chamber of Commerce? The entire oil industry? Various former counterterrorism tsars? The one that was so important that the Supreme Court set two different oral arguments for it on different issues? Bueller?

    It's like third on the list in your own link, dude. Yet you mention Hollingsworth and Nix, which haven't even been granted cert yet. :p
    Last edited by GrandAdmiralJello, Oct 2, 2012
  2. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Nov 10, 2012
  3. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
  4. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    This makes me worried, that DOMA and Prop 8 will be upheld because by and large, this is still a very very conservative (not still leaning on the oldish side) court.
  5. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    If they're upheld, the pro-marriage-equality side loses nothing.

    But it is very, very likely that DOMA will be struck down. Especially since Kennedy is mostly a libertarian, and was the key vote in Lawrence versus Texas.

    It's unexpected that they're taking on Proposition 8... it must show that the liberal side think they have the votes to at least strike it down in California... though some think it could make gay marriage legal nationwide. I think it will at least be struck down in California.

    The Supreme Court, including Kennedy and Roberts, know the way the country is going. A majority of the country now support same-sex marriage, and a supermajority of people under 30 support it. It also won on every statewide referendum on Election Day, and the gay vote made the difference in the presidential election.
  6. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    The thing that gives me hope is that there is absolutely NO reason for taking the case except to strike those down. I mean, yeah, they might reverse a few district judges in liberal states -- but that just seems weird. Yeah the four conservative justices have enough votes to grant cert, but we have to remember that Kennedy's the guy who wrote Romer. It's gotta be the liberal justices who wanted cert on this one, and they'd only do so if they thought they had a chance to win.
  7. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Exactly. I just wonder how big the "win" will be.
  8. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Not that big. From a purely legal standpoint, I think the court's ruling will be limited to:

    a) Providing a distinction between religious and secular "marriage" for the purposes of equal protection

    b) Invalidate DOMA and limit Prop 8 (and future such state efforts) strictly in a "secular" sense, ie states may not interfere in the religious institution of marriage by either demanding any faith perform or proscribe gay marriage ceremonies, but when it comes to any type of non-religiously affiliated question such as spousal benefits/estate taxes (over which one of the cases is being brought by the ACLU), the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause must apply.

    Under such a reading, DOMA and Prop 8 must fail. However, I'm not sure how Kennedy will rule on this one. He wrote the opinion on Obamacare which would have tossed the entire law, and despite being in the majority on Lawrence, still came within a hair of overturning Roe in Gonzales v Carnhart.

    He truly is the swing vote, and being Catholic, the strength of the Church's social convictions has shown varying degrees of influence over his decisions in previous cases. IMHO, it's going to be really hard to predict on which side he is going to fall.

    A far more interesting person to watch is Roberts, especially if Kennedy is leaning towards the anti-gay rights position. I have to wonder, would concern over the Court's legacy (which obviously drove his position in the health care case) move him to the left on this issue if he were to be the deciding justice?

    Peace,

    V-03
    Last edited by Vaderize03, Dec 8, 2012
  9. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    what i dont get is why he'd want to leave a "legacy" of being part of something he doesnt believe in just because that's the way the wind is blowing. whether you believe its possible to achieve the glorious "Handmaid's Tale" version of society that american conservatives want, you're either pushing towards that vision or you're not.
  10. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Another factor to consider (provided that the Mayans are wrong and the world doesn't end in two weeks), will be if any justices decide to retire prior to the Spring/Summer term, and how that might affect the decisions on DOMA and Prop 8.
  11. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Justices usually announce they'll retire at the end of a term, in July/August. I don't think it's anything to worry about. If anything, I can see Ginsburg seeing this is her last big case to take before retiring.

    That's still HUGE. (I don't think anyone expects this to apply to religious marriages... religion isn't governed by U.S. government anyways)

    And who says Kennedy or Roberts need to "move" to the left at all? I'd also say Kennedy is much closer to a libertarian.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Dec 8, 2012
  12. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
  13. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
  14. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
  15. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Keep this to the topic, and posts should be contributing to that discussion in some way

    On the Prop 8/DOMA decision.... I know it's wishful thinking on my part, but I would like to at least see that as DOMA being dealt a resounding loss with at least one conservative judge going against it on Constitutional/States rights grounds. Unfortunately, it's one of those situations where that's abandoned to further a very specific agenda, but I've been longing for DOMA to be struck down for some time now, simply based on how it ignores the full faith and credit clause.
    Summer Dreamer likes this.
  16. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    On the Voting Rights Act... is the Supreme Court expected to just say it needs a new formula to determine which places need more voting regulations? Can someone please explain the case to me (and everyone else).
  17. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    You might be able to argue that for purposes of states recognizing same sex marriages from other states, but the full faith and credit clause doesn't mean that the federal government is bound by a state's definition of marriage. To use a close example, the federal government doesn't recognize "common law" marriages beyond what is defined in federal law. (For example, the Social Security Administration only recognizes a common law marriage if you live in a state that recognizes it, not if you then move to another state that doesn't recognize it.)

    Just because the federal government has usually accepted the states definitions of marriage doesn't mean that they are required to do so, nor that they are bound to those definitions. The federal government has full authority to define marriage for purposes of federal laws.
  18. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Kimball, that's true, but I'm arguing against section 2 of DOMA, not section 3. Not only did DOMA say that the federal government didn't need to recognize same-sex marriages from states that have them, but also that states don't have to recognize the marriages of other states.
  19. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    That one can be more difficult, but again we can look at the analogue of common law marriage. States aren't required to recognize a common law marriage from another state (although many do), and the Supreme Court has never required them to.
  20. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    The Supreme Court arguments for both DOMA and Proposition 8 are this week.

    In related news, the Chief Justice's first cousin (a lesbian) will be attending the Proposition 8 arguments, she'll be sitting in the section reserved for family and close friends of the justices, and she thinks he'll rule in favor of overturning Proposition 8:
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...n-cousin-attend-prop-145833042--election.html

    I think Kennedy will easily side to overturn DOMA on the federal issue, and maybe more. That should be a no-brainer.

    On Proposition 8, it's tougher, but I also think at least Kennedy will vote to overturn it in the state. What's up in question is if it will also have national implications. Possibly converting all civil unions into marriages. Possibly nullifying all civil unions. Possibly making same-sex marriage a right nationwide, similar to Loving v Virginia did for interracial marriages.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Mar 25, 2013
  21. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    The thing is, at the time of Loving v. Virginia considerably fewer states (all Southern) had bans on interracial marriage than states that have bans on same-sex marriage today. I think the SC will strike down Prop. 8, but I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if they applied it to the whole country. IIRC, the district court ruling gave them a way out in that respect.
  22. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Yeah, I'm not being overly optimistic like some people are, but it is a possibility worth mentioning. It's moving so, so fast. A year ago, Obama didn't openly support same-sex marriage. Now even moderate Democrats from conservative states support it, a sitting Republican politician on the national level, and a bunch of former Republican politicians. And a new poll showed something like a 57% majority are in favor. And 54% in Ohio, one of the ultimate swing states. Definitely moving much faster than civil rights movements in the past. That shouldn't have any effect on judicial opinions, but the Supreme Court justices don't live in a bubble, they know where the public is going, and probably most of them (like Roberts) have gay family members too so they have direct knowledge.

    My personal prediction is that the federal part of DOMA is toast, Proposition 8 is overturned in California, and the Supreme Court doesn't make gay marriage legal nationwide but leaves that possibility open for a future Court decision.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Mar 25, 2013
  23. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
  24. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    OH NO... wait what's that? I see a 5 to 4 with roberts writing with the axis of scalia joining in which usually means A Bad Thing but then there's concurrance from the limp-wrists so i dunno
    Last edited by Rogue_Ten, Apr 17, 2013
  25. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Well, pretty much everyone thought that it should be eliminated (abolished by Congress, actually) for a long time now. Although I'm not sure of the remedy. Is it spelled out in the decision? If it is is dead, then does it mean that the SC, and the SC only, will hear claims which originate outside of the US it deems to be notable, or are such claims simply shut down from now on?