John, last night (emphasis mine):
Am I the only one who thinks all the blue dogs and Republicans are coming out in favor of gay marriage […]
Benen, this morning, commenting on Senator Mark Begich coming out in favor of gay marriage, along with the recent statements by Claire McCaskill and Mark Warner:
That appears to bring the new total of sitting senators who support marriage equality to 44 — 43 Democrats and one Republican.
Were there some other Republicans in Congress–those facing actual voters, not DC media types who desperately want Republicans to be more decent–who have jumped on the gay marriage bandwagon? I don’t recall hearing of any but Portman, but I might have missed one or two. Otherwise, Cole was a little over-generous with his use of the plural form.
Just Some Fuckhead
He was prolly counting Chris Christie and Rand Paul since they are practically liberals these days.
I don’t get why it matters that these people are doing this? The Supreme’s aren’t supposed to decided based on popularity are they?
Given enough time, it won’t matter—no one except the overclass elites will make enough money to get married and start a family anyway.
Just Some Fuckhead
“Is it popular with Scalia?” drives two, perhaps three, votes.
If you believe the school which I think is called “legal realism,” the USSC are merely “superlegislators”, and presumably make their decisions like any legislators, even if they’re not up for reelection.
Not saying I agree, but there’s probably some empirical evidence, like the Court often following popular opinion.
@Just Some Fuckhead: I’m talking about the politicians.
Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal mistermix
@Just Some Fuckhead: I don’t count Rand Paul – maybe John does – because his position is just “states rights”. He opposes gay marriage. Christie is still against gay marriage.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) Just came in support of SSM. Thats FOUR Dems within the last 48 hours (too bad he missed last night’s midnight deadline but its better than NOT “evolving”.
c u n d gulag
Well, now that Jim DeMint is out of the Senate, there goes that little SC ray of hope and tolerance.
I can draw you a very nice venn diagram of decent republicans & Republicans facing voters:
. . . 0 0
If and when the assholes ever flip-flop to be in favor of basic human decency it will only be because the issue wins elections.
Decent Republicans is a null set.
My dad told me, as early as the 1970s, “A good Republican is a dead Republican.”
Who worth reading is liveblogging, since Scotusblog isn’t?
I don’t really have time this week but cannot pass up keeping an eye on what’s unfolding, if only to be reminded by his comments during arguments that Nino Scalia is an unstable old freak.
@Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Cardinal mistermix: It cracks me up that the “libertarian” isn’t even embarrassed to admit he’s against marriage equality and abortion rights. Respect mah economic freedom while I get all up in your bedrooms!
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Bernie: There was a deadline? Did you burst into flame if you missed it?
@liberal: John Roberts in particular is one who I think knows how to read a wind. He is concerned about his “legacy”, and that means not getting things Buck v. Bell or Korematsu wrong, and that means looking ahead.
If only those 43 Dems were as brave as Rand Paul or as dreamy as Chris Christie.
There were two sitting GOP US Representatives who signed that recent brief in support of same-sex marriage (this was before Portman’s change of heart). Those two are Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Richard L. Hanna (R-NY). Ros-Lehtinen in particular has been the most vocally pro-gay Republican on Capitol Hill for quite a while now. Of course, her constituency includes Miami Beach and Key West, so she kind of has to take those positions or she would likely have been a major target from a well-funded Democrat over the past few election cycles.
The courageous men who drafted the Second Amendment and the 3/5ths Clause would probably roll over in their graves if they knew the unit cohesion of America had come to this.
That’s most libertarians that you’ll meet. They care about themselves and their freedoms and they shouldn’t bother to care about other people’s freedoms except when they are in common cause for themselves.
“Libertarian” as a label is a lie, but “Every man for himself” doesn’t sound good on a bumper sticker, and “Asshole Party” doesn’t market well.
You have constructed the perfect explanation for the philosophy and marital status of Ann Coulter in one sentence.
The Moar You Know
@jibeaux: That and the perceived legitimacy of the institution.
He’s one of the few who truly gets how much damage Bush v. Gore did to the Court. He doesn’t want to go out being a caretaker of a damaged institution, he was to go out having “restored” its legitimacy.
Personally, too late as far as I’m concerned, but he can try and I’m glad someone’s at least willing to.
I get that, but some of them are smart enough not to broadcast the hypocrisy. And in a lot of cases, they just haven’t bothered to think about anything that doesn’t directly affect them — that’s different from taking a definite stand against other people’s rights and freedoms.
Hey Mistermix, could you cut out the titles by your name? It isn’t funny, and really makes you look like a douche.
I think you’ve missed a few social changes if you think this hasn’t happened already. Most of those “out of wedlock” babies aren’t being born to teenage mothers — they’re being born to couples who don’t want to spend money on a wedding.
Vaguely related (since I found it on SCOTUS blog): Scalia wrote the opinion in a pro-defendant Fourth Amendment decision that came out today. I think Kagan’s concurrence had the better view, but still.
And to be fair, some of them do actually believe that the religious right and the security state are bad; it’s just that when push comes to shove, most of them will hold their noses and vote with the fascists and fundies, because tax cuts are more important.
The fascists and fundies know this, and it leaves them free to continue being fascist and fundie in the knowledge that the Paultards will never make them pay for it.
Portman, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-South Beach) and only 1 other House member favor equal marital rights at present (among Republican federal officeholders). But 20 or so former Republican officeholders and others (e.g. Nicole Wallace) signed a pro-equal-protection amicus brief recently, which may be what John is referring to. We need as much support as possible; especially with the issue coming to a head today with the oral argument. It’s good that the blue dogs and a few Republicans are publically taking a non-discriminatory position – it helps create a sense of momentum while Roberts and Kennedy are making up their minds.
If we win, it’ll likely be either 5-4 or 6-3 because Scalia, Alito and Thomas seem to be certain noes. So, it’ll have less of an impact than a unanimous Brown v. Board-like decision. If we lose, it’ll be 5-4 and Roberts will assign the opinion and have to explain why he took the bigoted position for the remainder of his life. Byron White literally destroyed his legacy with Bowers v. Hardwicke. If we lose, we also can still challenge each discriminatory ban state-by-state, so there would still be the possibility of a Loving v. Virginia type ruling in a few years (Bowers took 17 years before being mercifully over-ridden).
Please let this be true
@The Moar You Know: The Court has gone through a number of ups and downs as an institution over the years. The Lochner era Court, for example, was pretty damn shitty. The late Rehnquist and early Roberts eras are not prize winners either.
Actually, no, I won’t be fair. I ran with the libertarian crowd in the 90s and the ones who actually believe that the religious right and the security state are a problem got out when it became apparent that they were in the minority. They are also the ones who came to realize that the security state and the corporate state are one in the same and that if you want to watch out for your liberty you need to worry more about the rich and the corporations than you do about your marginal tax rate.
The ones who are left are either college students who haven’t hit the real world yet (them I’ll give a pass to for the moment) or assholes who claim to be worried about such things because they know that being an asshole in public is still unpopular, but if they are an asshole waving a “Don’t Tread On Me” flag then they’re “freedom loving” instead of an asshole.
Some will. Some won’t.
h t t p ://w w w.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/26/supreme-court-gay-marriage-live
(last time I tried to post a link it took forever to pass moderation, so I’m obfuscating this one in hopes of getting your answer to you in a timely fashion)
Villago Delenda Est
When the ambulatory sacks of shit like Inhofe, Cornyn, Sayshuns, and Coburn come out for same sex marriage, get back with me.
@Mnemosyne: To be fair, a wedding does not need to cost more than a marriage license. Some of this “OMG weddings are so expensive” nonsense is driven by our consumerist culture. /off soapbox
All I want from the SCOTUS is for someone to ask Clarence Thomas to defend Loving v Virginia, which makes his marriage to a white woman legal in his state of residence, Virginia, while poo-pooing the rights of gays to get married.
Most states banned interracial marriage in 1967 and there’s no guarantee how long it’d have taken for those laws to be overturned via the legislative process.
I saw the results of a poll that most Americans, for the first time ever, are not opposed to interracial marriage sometime last year. Think about how long it’d have taken to overcome the bigotry in many quarters, where preserving the traditions “a way of life” has been tantamount for many citizens of several states for over 150 years.
Anyway, I don’t expect anyone in the media to reflect that deeply on this issue. They like Thomas have embraced the underlying principle of conservatism: IGMFY.
@jibeaux: So, um… does Roberts realize that striking down part of the VRA is probably not the way to go on this? You’d think Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson being the two usual go-to examples of infamous court decisions and twisted reasoning would be a hint. And he’s only fooling himself if he thinks he can do it quietly.
Oh, and he already has one albatross around his neck with Citizens United.
I thought it was generally accepted among “libertarians” that only the government, never private parties, is a threat to liberty.
@gene108: This is why any analysis of how the Court will rule on an issue can safely lump Thomas in on retrograde side. One might be wrong, but it’s damned unlikely.
I’m not talking about a wedding. It’s a common theory as far as I can tell that one thing hindering the rate of formation of two-parent families is that many men don’t make enough money to do so.
Villago Delenda Est
Which is why they’re shitheads.
Could be. I also agree with those who think he’s mostly concerned about rights of corporations and probably isn’t as much of a social conservative.
Higgs Boson's Mate
Hold your horses! Justice Thomas carefully weighs every case before he asks Alito what his vote should be.
From the Guardian link: Reuters twitter:
Might toss it for lack of standing.
@Scotusblog: “There are not 5 votes to strike down #prop8 and recognize equal right to #ssm at this time”
@gene108: Sadly, that would almost certainly be counter-productive – Justice Thomas would almost certainly be highly offended by such a question and would take it out on us for the next 40 years merely for raising the issue with him. Roberts may be different – he has a gay cousin who will attend the hearing this morning with whom he allegedly personally likes.
@Villago Delenda Est:
No, that’s only one of the reasons they’re shitheads.
IMHO at least as important as any other reason is the Georgist critique, which most people don’t pay attention to because they don’t understand the justice inherit in Henry George’s arguments.
As regards libertarians, it goes like this: they want to hold property sacrosanct (in fact, a good label for them is “propertarians”). Now, is that just? It’s not unreasonable to claim that, to a rough approximation, one should be able to claim as property the fruit of one’s labor (putting aside issues like how to fund the state). But land is the product of no one’s labor, and property in land can really only be defined by the state.
But libertarians are fine with land ownership in the absense of high ad valorem taxes on land, because as far as I can tell, libertarians main goal is as much wealth inequality as possible. Pursuant to the extremely wealthy then investing money in creating robots said libertarians can have fantasy sex with on the moon, or something.
The Moar You Know
This is the most likely outcome, and assuredly the best, because if they don’t toss it I think we lose big.
@patroclus: I am hearing rumors that Ginsburg may not be willing to sign on for this either. I am hoping it gets tossed back and the Court leaves this for another day.
@Omnes Omnibus: Yeah, that’s the worry – Roberts may be inclined to focus on the narrow issue of standing and decline to consider the case on the merits. The appellants in this case, in his view, may not have standing and the case would then go back to the Circuit and the California AG and/or Governor would then have to appeal/apply for certiorari. That would mean a delay of a few years or so and no certainty that cert would be granted again (although it only takes 4 for cert and it would seem more likely than not).
Kennedy uncomfortable striking it down.. Suggests dismissing case..
@lol: If they punt, they leave in place the 9th Cir. decision striking down Prop. 8.
Both sides do it, even when they don’t.
I wonder if McCaskill, Warner, etc. were deliberately holding back coming out for marriage equality until this week just to provide Roberts and Kennedy with hourly “Another Moderate Dem Senator for Marriage Equality” headlines in advance of today’s hearing.
The opinion of Maine Senator Susan Collins will be interesting to monitor on this issue.
She’s up for re-election in 2014 and she may be Tea-Primaried. (In fact, hers is the one Senate seat currently held by a Republican that Democrats have some chance of obtaining in next year’s contests).
Yet Maine voters approved a bill to legalize same-sex marriage last November; it was enacted at the end of December.
BJ correspondents from the Pine Tree State (e.g., DxM, MomSense, RedShirt) may know more.
@liberal: Let’s see, Lincoln, LaFollette, Teddy Roosevelt, uhmm… Ike… I’m about out of gas after that. Course I’m being generous as Bob and Ted converted away from the cause, and Ike really didn’t seem to give a shit one way or the other. Maybe I’m missing a scattering of other less than nationally known pols, but I’d venture all of them were pre-Nixon. So in sum, most of the dead repubs are jackholes too…
@Omnes Omnibus: Wouldn’t just not granting cert have done the exact same thing?
My theory is that there are a lot of under-the-radar unmarried two-parent families around these days who never got around to getting legally married. I have this theory because I meet a lot of them here in Southern California — people who have been together for 15 or 20 years who have property and kids together but never got legally married. I think a lot of the “single mother” statistics are actually women who have partners but are not legally married.
Villago Delenda Est
Those who DO have unquestioned standing have indicated that they have no interest in appealing the existing status rendered by the 9th Circuit, which is why the invisible sky buddy crowd brought the appeal to the Supremes in the first place.
The GOP’s good side was definitively smacked down with the Tilden-Hayes compromise that ended Reconstruction, though it did manage to limp along for another century before Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan and Gingrich put it out of its misery.
@The Moar You Know: Well, I’m hoping for a landmark sweeping Loving v. Virginia-type ruling that stunningly upholds the principle of equal protection of the laws as codified in the 14th amendment. On both issues (Prop H8 and DOMA). But I could see them hesitant to be so broad (especially on DOMA) because it would entail a wholesale rejection of what was then a popularly enacted statute by Congress on what is essentially a political issue. Brennan, Marshall, Douglas and Warren would have gone for a sweeping landmark ruling – do Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and maybe Roberts have their kind of courage?
@Just Some Fuckhead: Yup, everyone knows that one Rand Paul position that sounds sort of like something liberals might support is actually worth a million Democrats genuinely supporting it, because drones or some shit.
Villago Delenda Est
Particularly the vile shitstain that was Mark Hanna, the hero of the vile shitstain Kkkarl Rove.
@Yutsano: It only takes four justices to grant cert. There may be four who want to hear and decide the case; one which side they may fall is another thing.
@Yutsano: My guess is that they agreed to hear both this and DOMA and they can rule without one case tipping their hand regarding the other. They can send this back and uphold DOMA, they can overturn both, they can do something in between. This strategy gives them the most freedom. And they may have been of a split mind between the two cases and thought that hearing both and considering both together might produce the most consistent outcome (either way).
The non-cynical view of SCOTUS, which can be hard to render.
@Omnes Omnibus: This is not exactly legally correct, but, in effect, if they toss the case on standing, Prop. 8 continues to be toast and no one with standing has any intention of suing.
Villago Delenda Est
They’re essentially neo-feudalists, which is why I have no problem with lining the lot of them up against a wall and bombarding them with lemon meringue pies.
@Villago Delenda Est: That’s accurate – at the present time. Governor Brown and the AG would, however, be pressured to change their position if the issue ripens to one in which their decision regarding an appeal would be dispositive. And, as others have said, it depends on the standing-only ruling because it might merely uphold the 9th Circuit’s rejection of Prop H8; thereby not necessitating an appeal.
Ah, but anything that Congress supports so popularly must be held with suspicion. Obviously there was social pressure that these legislators were powerless to stand in opposition to.
Yeah, it doesn’t at all work the other way, does it? Funny that.
This is a JEB! quote in regards to SSM:
WTF does that mean??
@Omnes Omnibus: So they punted?
Villago Delenda Est
@Yutsano: WTF does that mean??
I think it’s more of the usual “Federal recognition for me but not for thee” – saying states are king when they don’t want a certain interpretation of law at the fed level but that the fed is just fine when they do – like Republican support of national right-to-work laws but not making Romneycare national after testing it in a Laboratory of Democracy(tm).
@Omnes Omnibus: When you are talking about standing, are you referring to the plaintiffs who initially brought suit to challenge Prop 8 or do you mean the groups who appealed the ruling to the court of appeals and eventually SCOTUS?
If SCOTUS decides to keep the laws in place (ETA: specifically DOMA), we will need these people to legislatively fix the issue.
It’s just oral argument. No decision yet. Oral arguments can be hard to read, and it is dangerous to speculate about a case based on them. Remember the Sturm und Drang on the ACA case following the arguments?
That being said, the SCOTUSblog dude who was twitter got the impression that a punt is coming. If he is right, it will be a decent, if not great, outcome.
@Omnes Omnibus: Did Kennedy open the door for the possibility of harm being caused to children of unmarried gays?
@Omnes Omnibus: Punting is always an option – if that’s where Roberts and Kennedy are inclined. If so, that wouldn’t ruin their legacy, but it won’t help it either. If so, I wouldn’t want them to coach my football team.
@Yutsano: It means that the smart Bush is whichever one we haven’t heard from in the longest time.
(That would be Neil, who took the money and ran.)
An excellent piece on the standing issue by Walter Dellinger.
Had him for Con Law way back in 1984. Showed up late every day and didn’t teach squat, but I forgive him.
@gene108: And if someone were to do so, his ridiculous answer would be that race is an immutable trait while sexuality is a choice. I have talked to more than my share of anti-marriage equality people — black and white — and I can confirm that this is the official line.
@Lee Rudolph: Thanks, Lee. I’ll pop in on it as I can today and tomorrow. I’m up to my eyeballs in work and not happy about it this week.
@Omnes Omnibus: Ted Olsen don’t know nuttin.
Plz read the article I linked. It is not as simple as “punting” — and it is by no means clear that that is either a legally wrong or an undesirable outcome.
@eemom: Thanks. That answers the question I just asked Omnes. It is the appellants that would lack standing at this point to overturn Walker’s (and/or the appeals court’s) decision
@Omnes Omnibus: Thank you as well
@MattR: I think the standing issue is whether Hollingsworth had standing to appeal from the district court decision. Therefore, if he didn’t, the district court decision remains in effect not the 9th Circuit. Unless I missed something. In either case, Prop. 8 stays struck down.
Dude, give John a little slack! He posts so seldom these days (except about his collection of flea bags or how it sucks to be middle aged) that it’s OK if we lower the bar for him just a bit until he gets back up to speed.
Mindful of OO’s caveat above (#74) on drawing conclusions from oral arguments, NBC’s veteran Supreme Court reporter Pete Williams appears to offer an answer to your final question (via TPM):
A question that I assumed to be rhetorical, if not downright comical.
@eemom: Thanks for linking this.
@Omnes Omnibus: Well, let’s see how DOMA plays out. I think it’s going to be difficult for him to defend his position. Is there any harm that anyone can point to in supporting the ban on marriage? The harm to gay couples and their families is plain enough.
I wasn’t expecting to hear that Roberts was unswayable on this issue. I seriously doubt that’s the case.
Since Kennedy mentioned that children of same sex couples suffer
legal harm, does this open the door to future lawsuits?
@Villago Delenda Est:
Yes, which is why the Georgist page with this attack on libertarians is entitled “Are you a Real Libertarian, or a ROYAL Libertarian?”.
Yes, but it’s true without a doubt that there are lots of single women with children for whom either (a) there’s no adult male in the household, or (b) the adult male isn’t the father of the children. And the adult male (whether or not (b) applies) earns little or nothing.
@handsmile: This is not a Court this is likely to issue broad, sweeping judgments on any issue. The swing justices are primarily conservatives. If they fall on the liberal side of a given issue, they will tailor their opinions as narrowly as possible. When they chip away at Warren Court decisions, they will also be narrow so as to not appear to be overruling a precedent but rather limiting it. YMMV.
Yeah, well, like I said, Dad was speaking in the 1970s.
I’d say that the current Republican Party is a cancer on the body politic, but that sounds eliminationist, so…
@eemom: Thanks for the article – Dellinger makes a good point that a standing-only ruling on the Prop H8 case is not exactly punting because it would (most likely) merely allow Judge Walker’s and the 9th Circuit’s opinion to hold, which would (effectively) end Prop8 and equal marital rights would then be good in California. If one is fearful of a Plessy v. Ferguson-type ruling, then that would be a decent outcome for California residents.
But I want a sweeping Loving v. Virginia ruling that would (eventually) apply nation-wide on the merits of equal protection and have that coupled with an over-turning of DOMA and a re-affirmation of full faith and credit rights; not a narrow standing-only California-only result coupled with an equally narrow punt on DOMA. Gays and lesbians live in states other than California and should have the same Loving v. Virginia-type rights under equal protection. To me, failing to go there means the Justices are not courageous and don’t really believe in equal protection of the laws and full faith and credit throughout the U.S.
But I see your (and Dellinger’s point). Apparently, some liberals believe that we’re not ready for full-blown equal protection of the laws. And we’ll just have to wait awhile until the laboratories of democracy continue to consider the issue.
More that we are scared that the Court might fuck it up for a long time, so we are willing to take the field goal.
ETA:SCOTUSblog’s summary of the state of play. The no majority approach is interesting, and probably better for gay rights overall than the no standing approach.
Funny, none of my wingnut teabag Face Book friends are saying anything about freedom and liberty and keeping the government out of everyone’s lives today.
@GregB: Qweerz r icky and give them a funny feeling inside. They’d rather we all just shut up and go away.
If you are including me or Dellinger in that “liberals”, you miss the point, which is
Roberts and Kennedy are not liberals.
@MattR: When you are talking about standing, are you referring to the plaintiffs who initially brought suit to challenge Prop 8 or do you mean the groups who appealed the ruling to the court of appeals and eventually SCOTUS?
Howabout SCOTUS itself? The situation was is that the California voters voted to amend the California constitution. The California Supremes voted to strike it down saying it was contradictory to the whole rest of the document. That *might* have been a reach, but if it was, no biggie.
So everybody went to federal court. Given that this is internal dispute in California and no rights are being impinged, I don’t see where the Supremes have any room to make a decision. (After all, reaching down and overturning the Florida Supremes for no good reason was the ending of the Bush v. Gore saga.)
The right thing to do here would be to punt on Prop. 8 and leave the ruling to California Supremes, provided that they made a tolerably sensible decision, which it mostly sounds like they did. (There is always good reason to be wary of overturning the voters – Bush v. Gore, for instance. On the other hand, there’s good reason to be wary of overturning the California Supremes as well, particularly if it isn’t consistently implemented across the states.)
DOMA is a whole other ball of wax.
Given the makeup of the court, just about any decision other than one striking down the California Supremes and upholding proposition 8 along with upholding DOMA is a win for us.
[‘Don’t get too excited.’]
@handsmile: Yeah, I guess it was rhetorical. My hopes are fading. My equal protection utopia isn’t going to happen. Supreme Court Justices have no courage. Dreams are dying. No pursuit of happiness rights here.
What was it like when the Warren Court was in power? When Brown v. Board and Boynton v. Virginia, and Miranda and Frontiero and Loving were decided? When we had courageous Justices? When the Supreme Court led the way? I wish I knew…I wish I could remember…I wish I could experience it.
@patroclus: I think the argument that they lack standing is a legally very sound argument. I don’t see how you show harm from a court decision that you don’t like. If you are denied a marriage license, harm, if you pay taxes on your wife’s estate that you wouldn’t have paid if your marriage had been recognized (DOMA case), that’s harm. But an ideological interest in not letting the gays marry is harm?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I believe it required nationalizing State Guards. It also required a SC that is more liberal than the current one, and even then, they put in words like “all deliberate speed” which sounds awesome until you realize it means “go as slow as you want to.”
@eemom: No, I don’t mean you – I mean the Justices, who, according to Pete Williams etc… have no interest in a sweeping ruling. This is their chance – one they probably won’t get again (or at least for a long while). Thanks for the link.
Many of the Justices do not share your view (or mine) of equal rights). This is a conservative majority Court. If they decline to decide this on the merits, it is probably a good thing for us.
@Omnes Omnibus: Evidently. Of course, my view is that it isn’t just “my (or your) view” – it’s the view of the Framers of the 14th Amendment who very specifically selected the words “equal protection of the laws” and the Framers of the “full faith and credit” clause as well. You guys are probably right – I should be happy with a narrow yet favorable holding.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@patroclus: Which framers of the 14th amendment are you talking about? As awesome as the words sound, and we should keep striving for them, the framers of the Constitution didn’t have any trouble including slavery or writing the Alien & Sedition Act, and the framers of the 14th didn’t have any trouble overlooking what was happening to blacks when it came time to move beyond the Civil War.
@patroclus: My view, your view, and the views of the 14th Amendment Framers don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world. The only views that count are those of the nine justices, and, given their make up, a decision that leaves Prop. 9 invalidated is a good one.
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Actually many of the guys who backed the 14th Amendment also supported Radical Reconstruction which led to black senators being elected in the South. Also too, 40 acres and mule.
Just when I thought mistermix and wr0ngway Cole couldn’t get any more naive.
Gays are a very small special interest group. You think Republicans are running scared that they are gonna lose elections because of Gay voters? LOL.
Republicans are not to be trusted to do things because it’s the right thing to do….EVER. You are a Fucking moron if you think otherwise even for a second.
Probably more about taking away Dem talking points. Redirecting the conversation. Shit like that. All political. They don’t give a flying fuck about making gays happy just because it’s the right thing to do.
Reuters did a decent job of reporting. They had this gem
While born during the Eisenhower presidency, the contemporaneous decisions of the Warren Court were of little concern to me, as precocious as I was deemed by handsmile pere et mere.
Now a little older (and “a little more confused’) and somewhat more attentive, it is an inexpressibly deep disappointment to realize that I have almost certainly lived through liberalism’s high-water mark for my lifetime. (The expansion of minority rights – gender, race, sexuality, disabled – is the one serious counterargument to such pessimism).
In this regard, see too, flying cars and lunar travel.
@minutemaid: Herp de Durf. Always your brilliance goes unappreciated.
@Yutsano: Time has passed
Apparently, by the end of the argument Kennedy was openly talking about dismissing the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
The Supremes are definitely in punt formation, but how they punt matters. If they dismiss the writ, then the Ninth Circuit opinion is the law of the case. If they find that the proponents didn’t have standing to appeal, then the District Court opinion is the law of the case–but, arguably, only in the Northern District of California. So county clerks in LA, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Sacramento, Fresno, Bakersfield, and Santa Ana could refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. That makes sooooo much sense.
@minutemaid: I know you’re one of our regular trolls, and I can’t be arsed to try to remember which one, but I’ll bite because I know there are non-insane people out there who buy this “LGBT people are a small minority” crap.
A solid majority of Americans favors marriage equality, even including, some of the latest polls suggest, a majority of Republicans. More than 80 percent of 18-29s do, not excepting evangelical young voters, who align more with their age group than with their religion on this issue. Yeah, you better believe politicians of all flavors are concerned about losing all those votes, now and forever.
Right now the GOP is trying to figure out how to placate its bigoted base while not pissing off the growing number of Republican voters who aren’t having any of this anti-gay stuff. They are so far not succeeding. The balancing act is going to be really interesting to watch.
Sotomayor’s question is exactly the right question. No Christian sect of which I am aware denies the sacrament of matrimony to hetero couples who are incapable of conceiving. Certainly the Catholic Church has never gone there.
@burnspbesq: Yeah, I saw that in the later coverage and talked about it above. You might find eemom’s Dellinger link interesting.
@JPL: And the standard anti-equality (and RCC) answer to that is that regardless of fertility status, sex between a man and a woman is always “open to the possibility of life.” It’s never explained why people would blithely accept that god could knock Mary up but be unable to do the same on behalf of two elderly heteros or two young men.
The only part of Dellinger’s analysis with which I might disagree (and I would have to do some research before getting to a view on the issue) is whether county clerks, who are elected officials, could choose to not follow an advisory opinion from the AG (which I would be willing to bet Harris has already written and has sitting on a server somewhere in Sacto).
As usual, Sotomayor’s on top of it:
That particular punt would leave the 9th’s overturn in place.
@Chris:To be fair? Why are you trying to give them props when none is deserved?
You said it yourself here.
What they believe in is tax cuts. Any purported beliefs they hold about the evils of the religious right and the security state are always jettisoned, ignored or rationalized away when, as you point out, push comes to shove.
If you can consistently ignore or drop or cast aside your statement of the truth of something, it’s not really a belief. That’s an antithesis of a belief.
@JPL: best smackdown ever, of that dumbass argument. yay wise latina, well-played
@JPL: best smackdown ever, of that dumbass argument. yay wise latina, well-played
How soon until National Review starts running articles claiming liberals are the real homophobes?
watching MSNBC this afternoon and the Mini-Broders were desperately apologizing for the goopers saying there’s no real difference them and Democrats.
Sadly gay marriage is headed to a difficult setback. Jonathan Capehart, who is gay, says with the Court punting, it will now take 20 years to eliminate all the bans on gay marriage.
Will all the True Progressives™ who said there was “no difference btwn Bush and Gore” come forward.
One would be too much. More accurately, the 22 states where it was illegal at the time would be many, not most of 50.
Not necessarily. If it’s dismissed because of the standing issue, it would be very easy to find a couple that was legally married in one state that moved to a state that bans their marriage to sue for recognition. As the injured parties, they would absolutely have standing to bring the case, unlike organizations like NOM that are trying to claim that they are somehow damaged by other people being allowed to marry.