Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

I’m starting to think Jesus may have made a mistake saving people with no questions asked.

If you still can’t see these things even now, maybe politics isn’t your forte and you should stop writing about it.

If rights aren’t universal, they are privilege, not rights.

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

Michigan is a great lesson for Dems everywhere: when you have power…use it!

This year has been the longest three days of putin’s life.

Museums are not America’s attic for its racist shit.

The republican speaker is a slippery little devil.

If you thought you’d already seen people saying the stupidest things possible on the internet, prepare yourselves.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Many life forms that would benefit from greater intelligence, sadly, do not have it.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

In after Baud. Damn.

There are some who say that there are too many strawmen arguments on this blog.

I would try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

No one could have predicted…

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

… gradually, and then suddenly.

We can’t confuse what’s necessary to win elections with the policies that we want to implement when we do.

President Musk and Trump are both poorly raised, coddled 8 year old boys.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

The willow is too close to the house.

You are here: Home / Politics / Activist Judges! / SCOTUS Open Thread

SCOTUS Open Thread

by | 203 Comments

This post is in: , ,

I’m still recovering from having a house full of relatives, so I haven’t been able to fly to Cuba to look for Snowden, and I don’t know what form of anal probe I’ll need to vote in the next election. It looks like the Supremes are going to tell us whether homosexuals are full persons or just 3/5 of a person in 50 minutes. Here’s a link to SCOTUSBlog’s live page.

Update: DOMA unconstitutional, 5-4.

Reader Interactions

203Comments

  2. 2.

    EconWatcher

    They may punt, but if they don’t, I think this one goes our way.

    Kennedy has admittedly deteriorated in the last few years, but the powerful and excellent rhetoric in his opinion in the sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas, tells me that we have his vote on this one. We’ve got at least 5 votes.

  6. 6.

    Jerzy Russian

    and I don’t know what form of anal probe I’ll need to vote in the next election.

    Now, you are overreacting. You won’t need any anal probing. A stool sample will suffice.

  7. 7.

    Comrade Scrutinizer

    Prediction: No matter what the final vote is, Burnsie will defend it as Vox Dei.

  8. 8.

    MomSense

    And please send your good, rebel energy to our Maine legislature who have to override our bully governor’s veto to prevent a government shutdown. #vetoday

  9. 9.

    beltane

    Homosexuals do not constitute a major threat to the Republican party’s hold on power so this could go either way.

  10. 10.

    Comrade Jake

    Is there some way we can get Wendy Davis to filibuster the SC? #standwithWendy

  11. 11.

    geg6

    After yesterday’s decision, I’m not as sanguine about this as I was just a few days ago. I really hope they do the right thing. The Kennedy of Lawrence fame cannot possibly go the wrong way here. But he’s been more than a little erratic the last few years, so who knows?

  12. 12.

    PeakVT

    and I don’t know what form of anal probe I’ll need to vote in the next election.

    They’ll just put your vote in the R column, thankyouverymuch. No need to show up!

  18. 18.

    quannlace

    and I don’t know what form of anal probe I’ll need to vote in the next election.

    If your state allows absentee ballots, I’d apply for it post-haste.

    In NJ you don’t have to give any hard-luck reason.

  19. 19.

    EconWatcher

    @scav:

    I think the votes on the health-care act shook Burnsie up a little bit, as they did me. I was genuinely surprised that four members of the Court–particularly Kennedy–would sign on to obviously bogus reasoning out of pure partisan spite.

    Not to rehash all of that, but the penalty was plainly a tax, and plainly within the taxing power of the Congress. And no one really disputed that. The only issue was, it wasn’t labeled as a tax. But the notion that substance prevails over labels is so basic to constitutional jurisprudence that it just boggles the mind they would pretend otherwise.

    For many lawyers including many, it was genuinly embarrassing for the profession to see four members stoop so low. I think the reasoning of the dissent was worse than the majority in Bush v. Gore. So at least on that one, I think you should cut Burnsie a break. He isn’t the only one who was wrong, and who was shocked about what they did.

  20. 20.

    quannlace

    and I don’t know what form of anal probe I’ll need to vote in the next election.

    If your state allows absentee ballots, I’d apply for one post-haste.

    In NJ you don’t have to give any hard-luck reason.

  21. 21.

    NotMax

    Dang it, them thar probes better be made in ‘Murka, usin’ plastic made from ‘Murican oil.

  22. 22.

    ksmiami

    Fucking fascist pig FAT TONY and his sidekicks need to die a painful death like yesterday. The five are a disgrace to the Supreme Court and their historical legacy will reflect this. I no longer want compromise with Republicans- for the good of the country, their entire way of thinking needs to be destroyed and obliterated. Take their advil and all remaining military installations and build a fucking wall. Decent people can immigrate to the blue states and then we seal them off and let Darwin sort it out

  26. 26.

    Ash Can

    Law, shmaw. The SC’s ruling this morning will come down to how fucked Roberts decides his “legacy” would be if he went along with his right-wing cronies and threw gays under the bus.

  29. 29.

    Mandalay

    Germany has directly challenged British ministers over GCHQ’s reported programme of the mass monitoring of global phone and internet traffic. Justice minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger has to written Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and Home Secretary Theresa May questioning the legal basis for the programme code-named Project Tempora…She warned the UK ministers that she intends to raise the issue at next month’s meeting of EU justice and home affairs ministers in Brussels…

    The move reflects growing anger in Germany at the disclosures of the former US intelligence contractor Edward Snowden over the surveillance activities of GCHQ and its American counterpart, the National Security Agency.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/germany-challenges-uk-over-legal-basis-of-gchq-mass-monitoring-of-global-internet-traffic-8673894.html

    Well those silly old Germans. They were simply not paying attention.

    If only they had come to BJ they could have read from our armchair experts that all of this was already known, and Snowden had not released any new information.

  30. 30.

    beltane

    @Poopyman: A committed and active minority is not the same thing as a demographic wave threatening to wash them away into oblivion. This is a big issue for the fundie base, but the Kochs and the rest of the big money boys couldn’t care less.

  31. 31.

    EconWatcher

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    That’s because you didn’t discern the actual holding in Raich, which was: Hippies lose. That’s entirely consistent with the holding in the ACA case, which was also, hippies lose.

    Clearly, law school training is out of date.

  33. 33.

    jomo

    DOMA – It’s a Kennedy decision 5-4 with Alito Scalia and Thomas dissenting. Looks promising

  36. 36.

    tavella

    Nice that you can tell it went the right way just from the list of who dissented. DOMA goes down.

  39. 39.

    EconWatcher

    @EconWatcher: I didn’t mean “holding” in teh ACA case–I meant the opinion of the dissent. Sometimes I forget we actually squeaked out a win on that one.

  41. 41.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    @Mandalay: I don’t buy it. I bet if we looked, we would find German’s here, spying. Probably sitting next to Snowden at one point.

  42. 42.

    PsiFighter37

    Prop 8 is the one that determines if gay marriage can get nationwide go-ahead. Given order of reading, I can’t see a wide prop 8 reading going down.

  43. 43.

    mai naem

    So the gay piece of the proposed immigration law is moot. This is good news for John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

  46. 46.

    Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism

    50 page decision in DOMA. They’re still reading it.

  49. 49.

    FlipYrWhig

    @scav: Yesterday he (?) was all excited about the Texas legislature filibuster. I don’t think he’s cool with all authority, just that he’s a stickler for legal reasoning and the distinction between what’s ethical/right and what’s legal, to wit, that a lot of bad shit is actually legal, which isn’t A Good Thing but needs to be kept in mind when discussing how lawyers think and judges rule.

  52. 52.

    dmsilev

    @Punchy:

    SCOTUSBlog with 230K+ peeps online. Good lord

    They do wonderful work covering a very important niche. Good to see that people are recognizing it.

  53. 53.

    Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism

    @raven: A lot of people don’t realize that the decision is read from the bench. There are some interesting things in the decision. Link here.

  54. 54.

    peach flavored shampoo

    @joes527: AKTAVIST JUJEZ! How dare the Supreme Court strike down a Congressionally supported federal law!

    /wingtardosphere one day after VRA decision…just you watch

  59. 59.

    Botsplainer, fka Todd

    Log Cabin Republicans rejoice – they get what they want despite the trollz they support

    Next up, heavy GOP solicitation of well-bred, well-connected gay men for money and support, which they’ll get volumes of.

  62. 62.

    ericblair

    Scalia’s dissent: The Court’s opinion both in explaining its jurisdiction and its decision “both spring from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society.”

    From the gang who gutted the VRA yesterday.

  63. 63.

    Elie

    @Mandalay:

    Looks to me like your boy is in a bit of limbo right now. Sure, he has proven he has done damage to the United States with our allies and certainly our opponents. What happened to the focus on what NSA was doing to Americans?

    Its obvious his goal was a mashup of opportunistic impulses, the will to power, the need for self importance and also a need to share all that special access and information that he had. Its also clear he pretty much didn’t care who he hurt and he is no patriot.

    So far, the Ecuadorians have said it might take months to decide whether they are going to give him the safety of their country as protection. They fully know that their favored nation trade status with the US is up for renewal I think this month. What are the odds the Congress passes that if they harbor a fugitive who has been protected by Russia and China. ZERO. Is Snowden worth billions of dollars of much needed revenue for their country? Doubt it very much. The question for Snowden is how does he get to Iceland? Is Iceland going to be that game to give him safe haven? Right now, he has papers for Ecuador but no passport. If he asks Russia for assylum (and maybe even if he doesn’t), they get those four laptops of his.

    I am sure, as the final indignity, the “transit zone” in the Moscow Airport must be a really cool place —

  64. 64.

    Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism

    Don’t think it’s normal to read out the dissent, is it?

  65. 65.

    Persia

    God, I’m so happy.

    Is it just me or is the jurisdiction argument from Scalia and Roberts bullshit?

  68. 68.

    PeakVT

    Amy Howe: Justice Scalia is reading from his dissent right now. The Court’s opinion both in explaining its jurisdiction and its decision “both spring from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this court in American democratic society.”

    Hi-larious in light of yesterday’s judicial activism, which Scalia signed on to.

    ETA: I see I’m not the first to note this bit of thermo-nuclear hypocrisy.

  69. 69.

    scav

    @FlipYrWhig: Interesting, but so is his whole Catholic thing — so I still think it’s more complicated than the simple law angle. It’s not exactly a damning judgement, it’s an observed quirk.

  76. 76.

    dmsilev

    @raven: I like this update:

    Justice Scalia’s bench statement is lengthy, so it will be a while before we hear about the next decision.

    I imagine Tony has some spleen to vent right now.

  77. 77.

    red dog

    The AP lead; Section 5 of the voting rights act was voted down by a four and three fifths to four margin. Even Charlie Pierce thought that was harsh.

  79. 79.

    EconWatcher

    @PeakVT:

    Well, at least it sounds better than Scalia’s dissent in the sodomy case, Lawrence v. Texas, in which he actually referred in ominous terms to “the homosexual agenda.” He might as well have written, “they’re coming for your kids.”

    Funny, it turns out that “the homsexual agenda” is freedom, equality, marriage, and family life. Scary stuff.

  80. 80.

    beltane

    @PeakVT: Thanks to Scalia & Co., any exalted notions I had regarding the role of the Supreme Court have long since turned to dust.

  81. 81.

    Violet

    @Botsplainer, fka Todd:

    ‘Next up, heavy GOP solicitation of well-bred, well-connected gay men for money and support, which they’ll get volumes of.

    Yep. Especially gay white men. Now they’ve got theirs, it’s time to pull the ladder up behind them.

  84. 84.

    Joey Maloney

    Shut up, Tony. You’ve done enough damage for one year. No one cares about your butthurt today.

  86. 86.

    Another Halocene Human

    @Chris: Yeah, fuck it, hard to feel happy after the last few days. There are gay 1%ers, not so many MOTUs in the Black Belt facing electoral maps shenanigans in the state leges year after year. And I’m gay. May have to change my tax filing status for the first time since I started filing. That’s kind of mind-blowing.

  89. 89.

    ericblair

    LGM has even a better quote from the dissent: “It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.”

    The big theological problem now is that lightning didn’t immediately strike him dead.

  91. 91.

    lamh36

    Good news for gay rights and civil rights, bit bittersweet because SCOTUS has has essentially gutted the VRA, the largest civil rights legislation the country ever had.

    Next up the Zimmerman trial and with the VRA ruling I’m not feeling good about the trial outcome.

    Still congrats to advocates and DOMA is a thing of the past

  92. 92.

    mai naem

    @dmsilev: It’s a pity he can’t vent his heart right now. He’s one guy I would be very happy to have Obama replace.

  93. 93.

    elmo

    @peach flavored shampoo:

    Read Scalia’s dissent. That’s exactly what he’s saying. And no, the earth hasn’t opened up and swallowed him whole, which for my money is proof that there is no God.

  94. 94.

    Another Halocene Human

    @Violet: Yeah, they already did this. Hope they like having tea and sandwiches with the Christianists. Oh yeah, the Christianists run from the room when they see them.

    Fortunately not all white gay upper middle class men are this craven.

  96. 96.

    Another Halocene Human

    @lamh36: So basically the court has said this week–you have civil rights–if you can keep them–

  97. 97.

    gelfling545

    Unlearned in law as I am, the denial of equal protection as a basis for DOMA being unconstitutional would seem to open the door to prop 8 being a denial of equal protection or is that too simplistic?

  98. 98.

    Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism

    @Suffern ACE: Having listened to audiobooks of Terry Pratchett, I would hope they don’t read the citations. :D

    The justice reads it from the bench.

    @mai naem: Typical. My reaction was “You go, girl!” and to wonder how rancorous the private discussions were, if it spilled over into the decision reading. The thing that struck me about the reports of Ginsburg’s various dissents was the comments about how unusual it was.

    Scalia is currently scolding the majority for establishing a new standard of scrutiny.

  100. 100.

    PeakVT

    OK, some obscure decision being announced now. Prop 8 will be the last one announced this court term.

  102. 102.

    Another Halocene Human

    @PeakVT: Isn’t calling him Fat Tony all the time kind of uncivil?

    I don’t mind the “Syphilitic Scalia” moniker, but for some reason this Fat Tony stuff just smacks of smearing all Italian-Americans. Anyway, should be clear that he’s a made man in the RCC mob, not the Cosa Nostra. Pope-in-Absentia Antonin might be more on point.

  104. 104.

    jon

    @Mandalay: What is the German government going to do? Demand that it be done secretly again?

    They’re just voting on a resolution demanding that their voices be heard that they don’t like what they pretty much assume has been done for a long time but now want everyone to know they don’t like it. Very strongly dislike it. It will sound better in German, but that’s the translation.

    And yes, their government probably knew about it because their spies told them it was going on. And they can read newspapers and such.

  105. 105.

    peach flavored shampoo

    Prop 8 decided by the SCOTUS saying “my bad, you losers dont have standing”. A net win, I believe.

  108. 108.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    @gelfling545: The 4.5 justices (Kennedy can flip like a coin) that are generally on the side we don’t like are state’s rights types. That’s how Scalia can justify gutting the VRA and yet allow DOMA to stand.

    For those paying attention to history, the US did this similar people’s rights vs state’s rights thing about 100 years ago. It didn’t go well for minorities. We’ll have to do a better job of defeating this attempt.

  110. 110.

    Elie

    @lamh36:

    Don’t give up, lamh — just not reason to. They are standing in front of a demographic and political wave and this act of desperation and fear will not change one tiny bit of that.

    We have always been successful ultimately by believing and acting on the right thing. Its not always pretty or immediate, but as MLK said, and I believe to be true, “the arc of justice bends toward freedom” even as it takes time — We have to acknowledge and feel our pain, but then we have to go back to that strong, righteous place from where all good energy comes from, no?

    Have a great day, friend… we move forward…

  111. 111.

    PeakVT

    Prop. 8 – no standing. 5-4, Roberts for majority, joined by Scalia, Kagan, Ginsberg, and Breyer. Kennedy dissents with Alito, Thomas, and Sotomayor.

  112. 112.

    Botsplainer, fka Todd

    @Violet:

    Especially gay white men. Now they’ve got theirs, it’s time to pull the ladder up behind them.

    It would be consistent. Wouldn’t be the first time, and wouldn’t be all of them, but there would be a substantial number.

  114. 114.

    Keith

    @ericblair:

    It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive.

    While yesterday they decided a law that was overwhelmingly passed a few years ago was outdated. I thought it was bad when politicians assumed we don’t have a memory longer than 2 *years*; now it’s 1 *day*.

  117. 117.

    beltane

    @Comrade Mary: It could be that she wanted to decide the case on the merits rather than jurisdictional grounds. I am pretty sure she does not stand with Alito and Thomas regarding the merits of the case.

  118. 118.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    @Persia: Yes, but what DOMA did was make it so that Texas did not have to recognize a marriage of two gays in NY. I’m not arguing he’s consistent, though. He would have found a reason to support the Fugitive Slave act.

  119. 119.

    Botsplainer, fka Todd

    @ericblair:

    “It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere “primary” in its role.”

    Thus sayeth the dude who voted to smack campaign finance reform, who voted to gut the Civil Rights Act, who tried to gut the ACA.

  122. 122.

    ruemara

    @Botsplainer, fka Todd: This. After yesterday’s rulings, this is just a way to peel off conservative gays and show them there’s no reason to align themselves with the Democratic Party. C’mon on in, fascist party is fine!

  123. 123.

    cmorenc

    Scalia, dissenting angrily from his own position in yesterday’s voting rights act case, said of the court’s decision regarding DOMA:

    : “… we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America.”

    There’s never been a more nakedly partisan, hypocritical pompously arrogant asshole on SCOTUS than Scalia. Remarkably little capacity for insight either, whether into himself or the situations of others.

  126. 126.

    sb

    “In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us,” Justice Scalia wrote in his dissent. “The truth is more complicated.”

    Too lazy to scroll up and coffee hasn’t set in. Anyone want to fill me in on what the hell he’s talking about here?

  127. 127.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @mai naem:

    Scalia apparently feels very strong about this so he’s being assertive not shrill, because you know, he’s a white man.

    The irony here is that say 60 years ago, he wouldn’t qualify as a white man. He’d be in that strange netherworld of “almost white, but not black” but CERTAINLY not a respectable white person. Swarthy. Olive Oil voice. Etc.

  128. 128.

    BGinCHI

    Sorry everyone, but no time to comment. So many legally gay things to do today…so little time.

  129. 129.

    max

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): The 4.5 justices (Kennedy can flip like a coin)

    Until some President replaces one of the justices form one side or the other, it’s a 4-4 deadlock, so we might as well replace Kennedy with a random number generator. (That’s not really true: it seems clear Kennedy is preventing big sweeping wins by either side, which is why we get all this shitty reasoning.) So he’s a pseudo-random number generator.

    max
    [‘I’ll bet he has ‘Made in China’ stamped on his foot.’]

  131. 131.

    Botsplainer, fka Todd

    @PeakVT:

    Prop. 8 – no standing. 5-4, Roberts for majority, joined by Scalia, Kagan, Ginsberg, and Breyer. Kennedy dissents with Alito, Thomas, and Sotomayor.

    Ginsberg and Breyer are worse sellouts than Obama and Sanders, and should be primaried by Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur.

  133. 133.

    Anthony McCarthy

    Celebrate The Death of DOMA With Expanded Civil Rights Agitation
    It is one of the weirdest turn-arounds in my lifetime that gay rights are progressing as the rights of racial and ethnic minorities and women are dying in the courts and legislatures. I never would have expected that Gay folk would be able to cut into the line ahead of other groups who had made more progress in the past. The celebrations of the overturning of the clearly unconstitutional “Defense of Marriage Act” should be muted by the bitter ruling on the Voting Rights Act yesterday and the attacks of the right of women to the most intimate of all rights, the rights to determine the state of their own bodies.

    If gay rights advocates do not turn, immediately, to overturning the Supreme Court’s assassination of the Voting Rights Act and the attacks on women’s rights, we will have nothing to be proud of on the next Gay Pride Day.

    If Lesbians and Gay men stop to enjoy this progress, ignoring the attacks on self-government and equality, our rights will prove to be as ephemeral and prone to overturning as the most important civil rights law of the past century. If they can do that to voting rights, they can do it to any rights.

  135. 135.

    Botsplainer, fka Todd

    @Elie:

    So far, the Ecuadorians have said it might take months to decide whether they are going to give him the safety of their country as protection. They fully know that their favored nation trade status with the US is up for renewal I think this month. What are the odds the Congress passes that if they harbor a fugitive who has been protected by Russia and China. ZERO. Is Snowden worth billions of dollars of much needed revenue for their country? Doubt it very much. The question for Snowden is how does he get to Iceland? Is Iceland going to be that game to give him safe haven? Right now, he has papers for Ecuador but no passport. If he asks Russia for assylum (and maybe even if he doesn’t), they get those four laptops of his.

    And remember, Snowden isn’t independently wealthy like Assange. Taking him in is taking on a really unappealing charity case.

  136. 136.

    Dexter

    “I heard the decision, I have not had a chance to read it,” he said. “After I’ve read the decision, ill have something for you.”

    John Boehner on DOMA decision.

  137. 137.

    burnspbesq

    Yawn. The court got to the obviously correct result in both cases. Everything else is noise.

    As a Californian with a gay kid, needless to say I am pleased by the results.

  139. 139.

    Botsplainer, fka Todd

    @Anthony McCarthy:

    It is one of the weirdest turn-arounds in my lifetime that gay rights are progressing as the rights of racial and ethnic minorities and women are dying in the courts and legislatures. I never would have expected that Gay folk would be able to cut into the line ahead of other groups who had made more progress in the past. The celebrations of the overturning of the clearly unconstitutional “Defense of Marriage Act” should be muted by the bitter ruling on the Voting Rights Act yesterday and the attacks of the right of women to the most intimate of all rights, the rights to determine the state of their own bodies.

    If gay rights advocates do not turn, immediately, to overturning the Supreme Court’s assassination of the Voting Rights Act and the attacks on women’s rights, we will have nothing to be proud of on the next Gay Pride Day.

    My guess is that we can still count on the support of the L activists (they’re generally on the side of the angels), but the G? Not so much. There are too many well-heeled glibertarians among them that benefit from being well-connected white guys in a white guys’ world, and they’ve demonstrated some tunnel vision in the past.

    I hope they prove me wrong, but I have strong doubts.

  140. 140.

    PeakVT

    @me: Good question. I’m not clear on what the status of Prop. 8 is now.

    ETA: from Scotusblog:

    Kevin Russell: There will be much further discussion and analysis about how the decision in Perry affects other couples in California. For the time being, we will say this: the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal challenging a final order from the trial court. It would appear, then, that the order will go into effect. And it appears that this final order purports to prohibit the Attorney General and the Governor from enforcing Prop. 8.

    There could well be new challenges to the scope of that order. But for the time being, the order appears to be in effect and to prevent enforcement of Proposition 8 statewide.

    ETAA: I’m still not clear on which court decision governs. The Federal District Court?

  143. 143.

    JCJ

    @burnspbesq:

    Obviously correct I agree, but throughout the history of the court I was under the impression that the “obviously correct” decision was not always made.

    As a parent of a gay kid as well as the brother of a gay man and uncle of a gay nephew I am also quite pleased.

  144. 144.

    Brachiator

    Whoo hooo! A good day for justice. The special sauce is Scalia’s futile, angry dissent.

  145. 145.

    Violet

    @Anthony McCarthy: Lesbians have a vested interest in the War on Women. Gay men, particularly gay white men, less so. I fully expect that the gay rights folks will not join other groups to fight for their rights. As I said upthread, pulling up the ladder behind them.

    Several years ago when I still visited Andrew Sullivan’s blog occasionally, I remember him saying that he thought gay men were a “natural constituency” for the Republican party, but he expected lesbians would remain Democrats. Of course. Because once they’ve got rights and equality, who cares about anyone else? Perfect example of the IGMFY attitude. That attitude seems to be prevalent, so why wouldn’t it apply to relatively well off white gay men too.

  146. 146.

    Nutella

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    The irony here is that say 60 years ago, he wouldn’t qualify as a white man. He’d be in that strange netherworld of “almost white, but not black” but CERTAINLY not a respectable white person. Swarthy. Olive Oil voice. Etc.

    Name ends in a vowel. Obviously not a real true American.

    I’ve always wondered if one of the twisted reasons why Joe Arpaio is so hateful to the newer immigrants with Spanish surnames is his memory of the time when his own surname was a mark against him. (He’s 81.)

    (Edited for clarity)

  147. 147.

    Another Halocene Human

    @Anthony McCarthy: Because gay people are everywhere, including the Hamptons and in the halls of power.

    The 1% gets their needs met before everyone else. Public opinion shifted to where even the elite started to get worked up about it.

    VRA is a very partisan move to keep a desperate GOP in power. They don’t care who they hurt. The majority of Americans believe in the right to vote, but the 1%ers want their tax breaks, dammit! And they’ll make common cause with racist fascists if need be. They wouldn’t live in those shitholes anyway, so it doesn’t effect them.

  149. 149.

    schrodinger's cat

    SC is like the lizard we encountered in math problems as children, it goes up 2 inches and then slides back one inch. Now Sully can go back to loving Republicans.

  150. 150.

    Another Halocene Human

    You are right about Pride. I haven’t forgotten where I came from and I hope others remember, too.

    BTW, Obama took a big step supporting SSM and actually helped get a lot of AAs on our side. It’s time for our shitty so-called gay leaders to reach out more to GLBT groups activists and communities of color and denounce the asshats who wrongly blame AA voters every time a gay rights plebiscite goes down. Knock it off.

    There is a long, shitty history of gay groups excluding communities of color from rallies, marches, and generally any sort of group effort or decision-making.

  151. 151.

    Punchy

    How many minutes until Rush and Hannity dutifully report to their listeners that today’s SCOTUS decisions will force gay marriage in every state, and even force their sons/daughters to gay marry for a term not less than 17 months, at which time SCOTUS has ordered them to register as Gay-Americans or else deports them to Paragauy?

  153. 153.

    Brachiator

    @PeakVT:

    I’m not clear on what the status of Prop. 8 is now.

    ‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies!

    ‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig!

    ‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!!

    THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

    Prop 8 is an EX-PROPOSITION

    But more legally:

    By finding that the sponsors lacked standing to appeal the rulings, the high court reinstated an August 2010 decision by then-Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco that the California measure was an irrational act of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender. Most legal analysts have said the ruling would allow gays and lesbians to marry in California, because Walker’s order barred state officials from enforcing Prop. 8. But some have pointed out that the suit by two same-sex couples was not a class action and have argued that its effect would be limited to the couples or their home counties, Alameda and Los Angeles.

    We’ll see what happens.

  154. 154.

    Another Halocene Human

    @Nutella: Think Irish overseers on the Mississippi sugar plantations (Irish were “white negroes”). Kurds driving the deathmarch during the Armenian genocide (Kurds were next on the Ataturk Agenda). Or the Polish (Untermenschen) guards at Auschwitz.

  156. 156.

    sb

    @Punchy: I wouldn’t listen to them if I had cancer and it meant the difference between life and death but I assume they’re already on that train.

  157. 157.

    indycat32

    If the people arguing the Prop 8 case didn’t have standing, shouldn’t SCOTUS have figured that out before they agreed to hear the case?

  158. 158.

    Another Halocene Human

    @Violet: Lesbians have a vested interest in the War on Women. Gay men, particularly gay white men, less so.

    Thank FSM a lot of straight guys are stepping up.

    Bi women were arguing the importance of straight male allies back in the 1970s but it took a whole generation before we got a crop of guys who really got it.

    Although honestly? I feel sorry for any gay guy who basically loathes and distances himself from women.

  161. 161.

    me

    @PeakVT: Interesting. Strange that the appeals court has to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds but not the district court. Schwarzenegger was governor during the district court trial but he wouldn’t defend it either.

    Edit: I think I see what happened. The state wouldn’t defend the case so the judge allowed the private group to intervene as defendants. They could defend it but had no standing to appeal.

  162. 162.

    PeakVT

    @indycat32: It can be important to say why plantiffs don’t have standing. I think this case was different than most others in that private persons were attempting to do the job the state normally does, which was defend the validity of law itself.

  163. 163.

    Anonymous

    @indycat32:

    Scalia et. al. were hoping they could make a case that gave them a shed of cover to bash teh gays. When they couldn’t even mount that they sent it back.

  165. 165.

    burnspbesq

    @Brachiator:

    Heavy traffic on the eastbound Bay Bridge and the northbound 5 until the AG’s office “advises” the other 56 county clerks that they have to comply with judge Walker’s ruling.

  166. 166.

    beltane

    @Violet: In some ways this restores the normal order of things. Rich white men can now vote the way rich white men tend to vote regardless of whether they are gay or straight. Homosexual men have been members of the elite ever since humans began to form complex societies. That said, most gay people are not rich white men, and for these people there is no incentive whatsoever to vote Republican. The main downside is that the religious right will now devote all their considerable resources to the stripping away of women’s rights.

  167. 167.

    piratedan

    @Punchy: @151 They’ll work that in so that at the same time that your young person registers per the selective services act, they’ll just go ahead and be gay married then, y’know government efficiency in action.

  171. 171.

    burnspbesq

    It will be interesting going forward to see what the hell “careful consideration” (the standard of review the court says it applied in Windsor) means.

  172. 172.

    Violet

    @Another Halocene Human: Yeah, I’m thankful a lot of straight men, and gay men too, I’m sure, recognize that discrimination against anyone is something to be fought against. Anyone fighting that discrimination needs allies across the spectrum.

    @beltane: Yeah, agreed. And sad about the doubling down on the war on women. I think I have whiplash this week from all the stuff happening, good and bad.

  173. 173.

    Villago Delenda Est

    OK, can someone here (probably Burnsie) explain how the Prop 8 case got to the SC just so they could rule “no standing” and basically punt the entire issue? I suspect that Stotomayor’s dissent was that she wanted to drive a stake through the heart of the damned thing by ruling on the merits, and not just use the technicality. Given how she voted on DOMA, that seems a logical conclusion.

    However, the hiliarity of the vile shitstain Scalia wailing about the court judicially taking out DOMA after yesterday’s bitch slap of Congress for the VRA is simply to die for.

  174. 174.

    Brachiator

    @Violet:

    Several years ago when I still visited Andrew Sullivan’s blog occasionally, I remember him saying that he thought gay men were a “natural constituency” for the Republican party, but he expected lesbians would remain Democrats. Of course. Because once they’ve got rights and equality, who cares about anyone else? Perfect example of the IGMFY attitude. That attitude seems to be prevalent, so why wouldn’t it apply to relatively well off white gay men too.

    What Sullivan says is often absurd, and this is just another example. I am not aware of any law that sought to favor gay men, or white gay men over lesbians. Historically, a lot of animus against gays focused on men, the presumption being that sodomy, for example, was particularly heinous when men did it, but whatever women did was irrelevant, because all women, gay or straight, were irrelevant.

    And in America (and elsewhere), the trump card of privilege is still based on race, not gender or sexual orientation.

  176. 176.

    Jockey Full of Malbec

    @Anthony McCarthy:

    I never would have expected that Gay folk would be able to cut into the line ahead of other groups who had made more progress in the past.

    The majority of them are white, and in past eras that demographic has trended GOP. As others have pointed out, Roberts &co. are just Harvesting a useful source of future votes (while suppressing the other sides’ votes).

    Just wait until the Rand/Ron Paul Legalization Brigade comes of serious political age in a few years. You’ll start seeing Tea Party candidates wearing tricorn hats made of hemp.

  177. 177.

    Comrade Jake

    This is one of those days when it might actually be fun to listen to Hannity or Rush on the radio. God how I love the sound of wingnut heads exploding in the morning.

  178. 178.

    Suffern ACE

    @Villago Delenda Est: If I’m reading that statement above, the homophobe is so in favor of DOMA that he’d vote to dismantle the ability of the Courts to weigh in on the activitities of the other two branches ever again.

  179. 179.

    Matt McIrvin

    @Brachiator: My guess: Whatever the jurisdictional convolutions, Jerry Brown will take this as sufficient reason to stop enforcing Prop. 8 and let people get married. If somebody wants to bring a new suit challenging that, they can try and see how it shakes out.

  180. 180.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Comrade Jake:

    God how I love the sound of wingnut heads exploding in the morning.

    If only it were literal, ala Scanners, and not figurative.

  181. 181.

    Brachiator

    @burnspbesq:

    Heavy traffic on the eastbound Bay Bridge and the northbound 5 until the AG’s office “advises” the other 56 county clerks that they have to comply with judge Walker’s ruling.

    Ha! Makes sense.

  182. 182.

    Matt McIrvin

    @Villago Delenda Est: What the Court did was stronger than just refusing to rule on the case; they actually invalidated the existing federal circuit court ruling on the grounds that the defenders of Prop. 8 at that point had no standing (but left the district court ruling intact). That seems to be the reason they took the case.

  183. 183.

    Violet

    @Jockey Full of Malbec: If the Democrats had any brains, they’d steal the pot legalization issue and all the young voters it brings. Instead it looks like the other side may. Dems are really missing a huge opportunity.

  184. 184.

    Forum Transmitted Disease

    Win the right to marry, lose the right to vote. Cheer on, libtards.

  187. 187.

    burnspbesq

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    The 100 proof legal mumbo-jumbo is that standing is jurisdictional (if there is no standing, the only thing the court has the power to do is enter an order dismissing the case), but courts always have jurisdiction to determine whether they have jurisdiction.

    And in the Federal system, lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, either by a party or by the court on its own initiative.

  188. 188.

    Brachiator

    @Matt McIrvin:

    My guess: Whatever the jurisdictional convolutions, Jerry Brown will take this as sufficient reason to stop enforcing Prop. 8 and let people get married. If somebody wants to bring a new suit challenging that, they can try and see how it shakes out.

    As burnspbesq noted, the California Attorney General may lean on county officials to make sure that gay marriage is permitted throughout California.

    In a background summary on the progress of gay rights in California, the Sacramento Bee noted Jerry Brown’s early efforts:

    1975: Gov. Jerry Brown signs legislation repealing criminal penalties for adultery, oral sex and sodomy between consenting adults.

    Nice touch that in his second go round as governor, he gets to be involved in being helpful again.

  189. 189.

    The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion

    I’d like to take this opportunity to be thankful and say that I never honestly thought I’d see it in my lifetime. There. I would now like to address some of you shit-stains who’ve taken advantage of the opportunity for one last swipe at the faggots. There ARE gay white men who engage in racism and misogyny. I’ve certainly known my share. But to presumptively assume, as some have in this thread, that gay white men will now rush to embrace the party that presided over the AIDS crisis, that embraces religious homophobia and STILL fights for the rights of businesses, landlords, and family courts to routinely deny gay people the same rights as others smacks of considerable prejudice all its own. And as for “cutting in line”, that comment is so offensively stupid on so many levels that it’s difficult to know where to start. Were black folks “cutting in line” ahead of Native Americans, when LBJ signed civil rights legislation, and Natives still couldn’t legally practice their own religions? Were women “cutting in line ahead” of black folks, when they gained the right to vote at a time when most American blacks were functionally disenfranchised? There isn’t a line, you pathetically small-souled tumor. There is a crowd, an entire world full of people who have been, and continue to be, screwed over by the American aristocracy. Each group struggles for its own rights. Sometimes they make some progress. Sometimes they help each other. Sometimes they don’t. They should. We all should. But before you walk around spewing some more hate on gays who happen to be white and male, because of what you assume, apparently on the basis of your own character, that THEY (’cause they’re a monolith, right? Probably reach consensus at those meetings where they vote on the gay agenda.) WILL DO (’cause nothing says enlightened rationality like judging someone on the basis of your own predictions), you might want to think about the fact that maybe justice isn’t a zero-sum game, where your getting some doesn’t deprive me of the chance. And human rights don’t take turns, you asshole.

  190. 190.

    lojasmo

    @Violet:

    EVERY SINGLE gay man I know is a strong democrat.

    Epistemic closure and all that aside.

    ETA: Except Ted $ Helen, who’s a registered dickhead.

  191. 191.

    Cacti

    I’ll be the one to go there…

    Will Bill Clinton thank the SCOTUS for overturning part of the law he signed as POTUS?

  192. 192.

    Elie

    @Violet:

    The reason they may not want it legalized is that the value of pot would drop through the floor and this is now a lucrative business. The practitioners have mixed feelings about its legalization I am sure because of that — at least in part. Its a somewhat trickier than it looks on the surface issue.

  193. 193.

    burnspbesq

    Getting rid of Section 3 of DOMA is a BFD, but we still have to do something about Section 2.

  194. 194.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Elie:

    Because if they legalize it, people will start growing their own, openly, and the suppliers as middlemen between the herb and the user are fucked.

    So naturally, they don’t want it legalized. They’re no different from the assholes at RIAA about this…their gravy train will be derailed.

  199. 199.

    Brachiator

    @lojasmo:

    Brown has already ordered state offices to isue licences as soon as the 11th circuit confirms.

    From the Sacramento Bee:

    In a letter to county clerks and records, the Department of Public Health said “same-sex couples will once again be allowed to marry in California.” However, the letter cautioned clerks, in bold type, to issue no marriage licenses to same-sex couples until a stay is lifted by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

  200. 200.

    Jennifer

    Now that DOMA’s down, bring on the full faith and credit lawsuits; soon same sex marriage will be legal throughout the country.

  202. 202.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Jennifer:

    Yeah, the dam has essentially burst, and if full faith and credit means anything, it means that attempts to ban same sex marriage on a state by state basis will fail.

  203. 203.

    The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of Compassion

    @Botsplainer, fka Todd: Fuck you, you short-sighted asshole. I fought for civil rights for gays, women, ethnic and racial minorities and the disabled. I was spit on, jailed, and watched my friends die in droves because of other peoples’ prejudices. I devoted ten years of my life to advocacy for people with AIDS, everywhere from the courts to the rez to hospice, and I’ve devoted the last twenty to special education, and I was the southeast Missouri delegate for the Fight the Right campaign that stopped a Colorado-style amendment two from passing in my state. I served as the Ryan White Delegate for southeast Missouri, administering funding for treatment and palliative care of PWAs, and I preached to the local ministerial alliance on the sin of homophobia. I co-founded the AIDS Project of Southeast Missouri, one of the most effective advocacy community organizations in the Midwest during the 90’s. That’s my record, not that of “Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Jeff Gannon, Huckleberry Closetcase, Yertle McConnell and hordes of closeted GOP staffers and activists”. I’ve devoted my entire life to combating bigots and their self-hating, closeted henchmen. What have you done for the human race lately? Other than throwing lame barbs from the sidelines of a blog, that is. My support for equal human rights for white gay males, among others, does not equate to a blanket endorsement of the behavior of all carbon-based life-forms throughout time. The fact that you seem to be unable to differentiate between equal rights for a group of human beings, and an endorsement of individual conduct of some members of that group says quite a bit about the basis of your own world view. Who else doesn’t deserve rights, because members of their group have betrayed their trust and the common good? I heard that some rabbis cooperated with local Nazi administrators in an attempt to mitigate the devastation of their communities. Some slaves gained favor by betraying the secrets of other slaves. The Illini nation sold chief Pontiac to the British. I’m willing to bet that there have probably been some anthropoid excrement among the members of whatever ethnic group(s), orientation(s), religion(s), or other classifications of humanity that are blessed enough to have you as a member. Are you therefore less worthy of equal dignity and justice before the law? Or should we not rather respond to you as your individual participation here has merited? That is, as an ignorant, self-important troll.

Comments are closed.