Here we go.
SCOTUS, 5-4, Kennedy with the decision, 14th Amendment holds there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Dissents from all four conservatives, including Chief Justice Roberts. (and as Cervantes reminds me, the question of states having to recognize same-sex marriages was also answered in the affirmative hell yes category.)
Kennedy: “States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle, yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.”
Kevin Russell at SCOTUSBlog: “The majority bases its conclusion that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right on “four principles and traditions”: (1) right to person choice in marriage is “inherent in the concept of individual autonomy”; (2) “two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals”; (3) marriage safeguards children and families; (4) marriage is a keystone to our social order.”
Oh, and 8-1 decision, Scalia writing, that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutional (that “three strikes” case). That’s rather big too, but, hey.
That leaves lethal injection, the EPA ruling, and the Arizona redistricting ruling for Monday, still three major cases. But we’ll go with that Kennedy decision for now.
Have a nice day.
Betty Cracker
Damn it, there’s something in my eyes, and they’re leaky all the sudden. Hate it when that happens!
rikyrah
Oh my.
Oh my.
OH MY!!
Karen in GA
What a great day!
I’m sure Scalia’s dissent (because I’ll bet money he dissented) was simply a jar of bitter tears slammed down on Roberts’ desk. .
raven
Boom Shakalaka!
richard mayhew
Fuck yeah!
debbie
I always hit the wrong thread.
From SCOTUSblog:
That would explain Scalia’s frothing.
elmo
My wife and I bought a house in Maryland specifically so we could get married.
This decision means I can move anywhere in the country that I want to.
kindness
Awwww. Another good day in what could be paradise.
Now if only Conservatives would follow through with their threats and all move (preferable out of the US).
Glaukopis
I suspect knowing this also was coming was behind Scalia’s rage in yesterday’s opinion.
rikyrah
SCOTUSBlog rocks!!
I remember the Maddow segment when she introduced the folks behind SCOTUSBlog, and it was some old -timer reporter who still did everything by hand. Loved it.
elmo
Hold a place for me – I’m going to nip out for a taste of bitter wingnut tears…
chopper
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO(cont’d)
Russ
Oh, to quote Jon Stewart. “It’s supposed to taste like a shit sandwich.”
chopper
OOOOOOO
Karen in GA
@Glaukopis: Then again, does he need a reason?
SFAW
Excuse me, but would you all WRITE LOUDER, PLEASE? I can’t hear you at all, because the sound of wingnut heads a-sploding is drowning everything else out.
BANG! There went another.
FlipYrWhig
It’s been a bad week for conscience-minded bakers of Confederate flag-themed wedding cakes.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I think the USSC just became one of the biggest issues in 2016, at least for their side. Let’s hope ours is paying attention this time.
@Glaukopis: May his impotent rage have…. further consequences.
nominus
goddammit, I thought I still had the weekend to get more buckets and mop rags, my facespace is going to overflow from all the puritanical hypocrites crying rivers and lamenting the fall of Civilization As We Know It.
bystander
Don’t know what’s making me happier: Knowing that all these barriers have fallen today and equality wins or listening to the keening and gnashing of teeth emanating from the rightwingnuts. So sweet those bitter tears.
MomSense
YES!!! Oh my! I am jumping for joy!
Ok, going to check out Scotusblog’s twitter TL to see the cranial explosions.
hedgehog the occasional commenter
YAHOO!!!! ‘Tis a great day!!!
Damn, something in my eyes (blurry monitor syndrome)
Karen in GA
@elmo: Congratulations to you and your wife!
SFAW
Has anybody checked the news feeds to see if Fat Nino stroked out over this?
That would make the last two days a quadfecta.
debbie
Glenn Beck insists this isn’t a victory for tolerance or diversity, it’s the beginning of the destruction of Christian faith.
greennotGreen
I would just like to quote “When Harry Met Sally”:
“Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!”
chopper
decided to dive into the dissents. ugh.
altho scalia’s usually good for a laff – his footnote 22:
burnspbesq
(In my best Marv Albert voice) YESSS!
SiubhanDuinne
@elmo:
I am incredibly happy for you.
chopper
“But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch”. no, Nino, tell us how you really feel.
SFAW
@chopper:
Was footnote 23 the sound of him stamping his widdle feetsies?
burnspbesq
@rikyrah:
That would be Lyle Denniston, who is a national treasure if you ask me.
Elizabelle
I am a little surprised John Roberts voted against. Maybe because he knew it would pass? What do you guys think?
Anyway, it’s the right decision. Two happy days in a row.
burnspbesq
Scalia has reached the Cornel Westian level of self-parody.
Elizabelle
@elmo: Savor!
Happy for you; happy for all of us.
chopper
Alito’s dissent is mostly butthurt. Thomas’s is a half-assed argument as usual. Scalia’s is a rip, i’m surprised he didn’t suffer a coronary. he’s basically going godwin.
Napoleon
@burnspbesq:
:)
Elizabelle
Eric Citron at SCOTUSblog: moments ago:
SBlog noting it is rare for all four dissenters to write dissents.
chopper
i think at this point Scalia hiding his head in a bag would be an improvement.
Omnes Omnibus
Great news. Congrats to all of you out there who now have the rights you should long have had.
burnspbesq
This is so awesome I think I might cry.
But we could still get hosed on redistricting and the EPA’s authority to regulate power plant emissions.
And again, Kennedy first out of the box means that only Scalia and Roberts could be announcing opinions today.
dubo
Is anyone going back and archiving all of yesterday’s articles about Roberts’s “compassion” for posterity?
MomSense
@SCOTUSblog @megynkelly this country is lost in the worst way! I guess we may as well burn the constitution and “Bill of Rights”
0 retweets 1 favorite
Poopyman
@chopper: I’m pretty sure he just equated the Constitution to a fortune cookie. And not just the Preamble.
chopper
i’m surprised the chief dissented. history isn’t going to look too kindly on his opinion in this one. the other conservatives don’t give a shit about historical legacy and all that but it sure seems like Roberts does.
WaterGirl
@elmo: I got goosebumps when I read your comment.
Cervantes
No, that’s not quite it.
Both questions were answered in the affirmative.
Omnes Omnibus
@burnspbesq:
And, with the cases left, that wouldn’t be good news.
Helen
Via SCOTUSblog:
From the majority opinion, addressing the role of history in the constitutional analysis: “The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a character protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”
Poopyman
@elmo: Congratulations, but I wouldn’t want to see you leave.
WaterGirl
@chopper: wow, it is like a temper tantrum from a child!
RSA
Who would have predicted that 2014 would be a banner year for liberals?
JohnPM
Very happy for all gays and lesbians (both friends and strangers). I know it has only been 15 minutes, but I still do not feel that my heterosexual marriage is threatened.
burnspbesq
Oh, holy fuck: ANOTHER win for the good guys, in the Armed Career Criminal Act sentence-enhancement case.
Frank McCormick
@chopper: Yes, Scalia went full Godwin using the word “Putsch”!!!!!
Davis X. Machina
@RSA: Did I miss the repeal of Taft-Hartley?
debbie
@chopper:
I seriously can’t imagine why he wouldn’t support that opening clause.
Omnes Omnibus
@burnspbesq: That is awesome.
chopper
@Omnes Omnibus:
man what a week.
burnspbesq
And they are done for today. On to Monday.
The vote in Johnson v. United States was 8-1. Scalia wrote the opinion. Kennedy and Thomas concurred in the judgment. Alito dissented. That should be another fun read.
Steeplejack
I’m having lunch with my (gay, married) brother today, and the margaritas will be flowing!
This decision will have ancillary effects in so many areas, e.g., adoption. My brother and his husband adopted a baby girl in Florida last fall, and the legal complications of dealing with different states’ policies on SSM have been gnarly, to say the least.
This is a big fucking deal.
SFAW
I’m waiting for the inevitable wingnut anecdotes about how they and their (opposite-sex) spouse(s) decided that the decision has destroyed the “specialness” of their own marriage, and thus they must leave the country for who-knows-where.
Maybe Fat Nino will be among them.
SiubhanDuinne
@chopper:
Applesauce and fortune cookies. Dinner is ready in the Scalia household.
chopper
@SiubhanDuinne:
“The majority is attacking the constitution as if it were a plate of piping-hot ribs”
MomSense
@elmo:
(((((Elmo))))) Hooray!!
Omnes Omnibus
@chopper: I am now dreading the EPA decision.
chopper
@Omnes Omnibus:
that’s monday, right?
Cervantes
@burnspbesq:
Well, here’s his barest summary:
Poopyman
@SiubhanDuinne: This is what we get when Nino writes his opinions before lunch.
burnspbesq
@Omnes Omnibus:
Happy to say we were both wrong about that. Scalia can surprise you on criminal justice issues.
Kropadope
Wait, I want to make sure I understand correctly. Does that mean that the three-strikes policy itself is unconstitutional or just some clause within one state’s three-strike law?
WaterGirl
@SiubhanDuinne: Larry Wilmore had some serious fun last night mocking the applesauce reference in the dissent from yesterday. He went on and on, using all sorts of silly and ridiculous food references. It was a thing of beauty.
burnspbesq
@Omnes Omnibus:
No shit.
Omnes Omnibus
@chopper: I expect so.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Huh, il Nino calls for greater diversity on the court(s):
I wonder what Sonia Sotomayor thinks of being called a “patrician”? Also, too, what “upheaval”?
Richard Mayhew
@Kropadope: Just a portion of the 3 Strikes Law is too vague to be constitutional — basically what constitutes a “violent” felony — is it possessoin of a weapon or the use of a weapon — Who the Hell Knows… therefore it is stricken from the law.
MomSense
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
And here is silly me thinking the Opus Dei representation was a bit skewed.
Karen in GA
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: So he’s in favor of Affirmative Action — oh, wait.
Omnes Omnibus
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: If he wants greater diversity on the Court, he could choose to retire.
Bobby Thomson
@chopper: people keep saying that, but the evidence isn’t there. Shelby County.
Cervantes
@Kropadope:
If someone is convicted of being a felon in possession of a fire-arm, the ACCA (on its face) allows more severe punishment if the person has been convicted three or more times previously for a “violent felony” — this last being defined only so far as to include any felony that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”
What the Court held is that it’s finally time to admit that the definition in the statute is too vague and using it to punish someone more severely violates the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
Emma
I am so glad. So glad.
Kropadope
@Cervantes: Better than a kick in the balls, I suppose.
D58826
According to Barney Frank the gay community has a radical agenda – get married and join the army. :-)
Brachiator
Well, this is certainly good news. Just what I needed to hear to get my morning started.
Gimlet
Any reaction yet on today’s decisions from the Pubbies running for Prez?
glaukopis
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Translation: Too many Jewish liberals here.
About evangelicals not being on the court – too many don’t believe in the rule of law or precedent or the constitution or democracy for that matter.
PurpleGirl
@SFAW: Ah, but, they will have to check what the country of choice’s policies are wrt to health care, gun regulations, etc. They may find the only countries they can move to are in Central and South America, to countries that still penalize women for abortions. But then they’ll need to learn Spanish… heads will be a-sploding for a long time.
Kropadope
@PurpleGirl: Plenty such places in Africa, many of which certainly speak English.