Federal Judge Rules Portion of DOMA (gay marriage ban statute) Unconstitutional

[Hubbs]

Prop 8 was heard today at SCOTUS, DOMA tomorrow. I went down there during lunch today. Decent crowd, about 500 or so. Probably 90/10 marriage equality/ fundamentalists.

Will post pics later.

Did you hear any second-hand information about what the justices were saying inside? (Except Clarence Thomas, of course. Obscure Supreme Court joke FTW!)

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Did you hear any second-hand information about what the justices were saying inside? (Except Clarence Thomas, of course. Obscure Supreme Court joke FTW!)

From everything I've seen, Breyer seems to be the swing vote and he doesn't want to rule one way or the other. This could end up some bizarre 4-4-1 ruling that sends the case ouf of Federal Court completely.

[Hubbs]

From everything I've seen' date=' Breyer seems to be the swing vote and he doesn't want to rule one way or the other. This could end up some bizarre 4-4-1 ruling that sends the case ouf of Federal Court completely.[/quote']

Not Roberts? He's got a lesbian first cousin who's going to be in the courtroom watching the proceedings.

[Larry]

Not Roberts? He's got a lesbian first cousin who's going to be in the courtroom watching the proceedings.

I'd be REALLY surprised if that makes any difference at all.

[greenspandan]

I'd be REALLY surprised if that makes any difference at all.

really? it seems weird to me for him to invite his openly gay relative (officially a "guest of justice roberts") to the proceedings only to slap her across the face with his ruling.

[Hubbs]

I'd be REALLY surprised if that makes any difference at all.

I wouldn't. While the courts are supposed to be impartial, and they manage to pull off that enormous task about 98% of the time (not sarcasm, it really is tremendously difficult), it's pretty damn hard to not notice the other 2%. For example, while this can never be truly confirmed, when the SC issued its Obamacare ruling, it was obvious that Roberts had changed his vote in the time that the justices were writing their opinions. (It was obvious because the opinions were all worded as if the law had been found to be unconstitutional, but that wasn't the final decision, of course. In fact, it was so obvious that Roberts managed to set a unique precedent in the history of the court. I hope I'm getting this right off the top of my head, but IIRC, the liberal justices argued that Obamacare didn't constitute a tax, and was therefore constitutional; the conservative justices argued that it did constitute a tax, and was therefore unconstitutional; and Roberts took the sole position that the law was a tax, and was therefore... constitutional? He essentially came up with a way to issue a ruling all by himself.) There was widespread suspicion at the time—and there still is—that Roberts changed his mind because of outside pressure, especially pressure from the media, who were busy summarizing Roberts' legacy as one of the most conservative chief justices in history. It's hard to argue that he remained impartial in that moment, and if the court issues a ruling in support of gay marriage, as I expect it to, I won't at all be surprised to see that Roberts was the swing vote, and I also won't be surprised to hear the angry cries of social conservatives calling him biased.

[Predicto]

There was widespread suspicion at the time—and there still is—that Roberts changed his mind because of outside pressure, especially pressure from the media, who were busy summarizing Roberts' legacy as one of the most conservative chief justices in history. It's hard to argue that he remained impartial in that moment,

As someone who has drafted opinions for a state Supreme Court Justice, and then changed them based on arguments made by other judges or at oral argument, I can tell you that this kind of speculation is absolutely worthless. The fact that Roberts had his own take on a complicated, cutting edge issue of law does not reflect anything other than that this was his take on the law and no one else went along with him. Supreme Court Justices are more insulated from press and public pressure than anyone else in the world (for good and bad).

[AsburySkinsFan]

From everything I've seen' date=' Breyer seems to be the swing vote and he doesn't want to rule one way or the other. This could end up some bizarre 4-4-1 ruling that sends the case ouf of Federal Court completely.[/quote']

What an absolute cop out that would be, if you're on the court you vote that's why you're there.

That said SCOTUS is hearing both Prop 8 and DOMA, are they going to be combined into one ruling? If so I might see a judge abstaining, but on two votes...I dunno.

Either way I think it is a robbery for both sides to get all the way to SCOTUS only to have it rendered pointless, why even accept the case if there won't be an actual decision?!

[twa]

Not Roberts? He's got a lesbian first cousin who's going to be in the courtroom watching the proceedings.

Does she support SSM?

[DjTj]

Does she support SSM?

Yes. And she lives in California. And she wants to marry her partner, who also attended the hearing.

Among the guests at Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing on California’s anti-gay marriage law will be Jean Podrasky, a cousin of Chief Justice John Roberts — and a San Francisco lesbian who hopes to marry her partner.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/25/jean-podrasky-john-robertss-lesbian-cousin-will-attend-prop-8-hearing/

I'd be REALLY surprised if that makes any difference at all.

The fact that he knows someone in a committed gay relationship has to affect him to some degree.

About a third of people who have changed their minds on gay marriage say they did so because they have a friend, family member, or personal acquaintance who is gay, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/20/growing-support-for-gay-marriage-changed-minds-and-changing-demographics/

[AsburySkinsFan]

Question: are the Prop 8 and DOMA decisions going to be ruled on separately or as one?

We need a prediction thread on how we think it is going to come down. I'd make it but I don't know all of the possibilities.

[twa]

Question: are the Prop 8 and DOMA decisions going to be ruled on separately or as one?

We need a prediction thread on how we think it is going to come down. I'd make it but I don't know all of the possibilities.

Separate issues unless they combine them

[DjTj]

Question: are the Prop 8 and DOMA decisions going to be ruled on separately or as one?

We need a prediction thread on how we think it is going to come down. I'd make it but I don't know all of the possibilities.

They are separate, and it's pretty complicated.

For Prop 8, there are at least five different possible outcomes.

The court could (a) rule all same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional or ( rule Proposition 8 unconstitutional but remain agnostic on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans generally or © rule that you can’t offer civil unions without offering marriage rights too, while leaving marriage bans elsewhere untouched but affecting states like New Jersey that offers unions but not marriage, or (d) rule that Hollingsworth and ProtectMarriage.com lack standing, uphold the lower court ruling overturning Proposition 8, and take no stand on constitutionality or (e) rule that Hollingsworth and ProtectMarriage.com have standing, and that Proposition 8 and/or same-sex marriage bans generally are constitutional, reversing the lower court and setting a precedent that states can constitutionally ban same-sex unions.

On DOMA, there are those same issues, plus two more.

What issues does the Court have to decide on there?

Three. The first is the equal protection issue, which is much the same in content as in the Proposition 8 case. The second is whether the fact that the executive branch agrees with Windsor means that there isn’t a real controversy in this case, meaning the court doesn’t have jurisdiction. The third is whether BLAG would be harmed by DOMA being overturned, and thus whether it has standing to defend the law (a friend-of-the-court brief by Harvard professor Vicki Jackson argues that even Congress doesn’t have standing, and even if it did, BLAG wouldn’t).

A ruling that focused on the second two issues would affirm the lower courts’ rulings and effectively void DOMA only in New York, or other states where courts have ruled it unconstitutional. But a substantive ruling would void DOMA everywhere.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-cases/

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ok nevermind on the outcome poll. :doh: Very much complicated.

I don't have a freakin' clue how this turns out. None....

[twa]

Ok nevermind on the outcome poll. :doh: Very much complicated.

I don't have a freakin' clue how this turns out. None....

the standing issue alone has some interesting avenues.

[Jumbo]

Conservatives Promise 'DEFCON 6' If The Supreme Court Overturns California's Gay Marriage Ban

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/conservatives-promise-defcon-6-supreme-010757737.html

"It strikes me that what we have right now is exactly what the genius of our federal system was designed to provide — a broad range of local solutions and arrangements to what is a contentious issue," said evangelical operative Ralph Reed, who leads the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

"If the court were to go to the most extreme case and strike down 41 state laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman by an act of judicial fiat, I think it will further polarize our politics, it will undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, and it will likely spark a marriage equivalent of the pro-life movement that will spend decades trying to reverse the decision," Reed said.

"If you're running for president in 2016 and you don't want to have to talk about these issues, you're certainly going to hope that the Supreme Court doesn't overextend its jurisdiction," said Steve Deace, an influential conservative Iowa talk radio host. "Because if it does, you're going to see an entire presidential primary defined by this issue."

"This idea that some people have that the court is going to settle the issue in the Republican Party — it's going to do the exact opposite," Deace added. "It's going to raise the issue to Orange Threat Level, it'll be DEFCON 6…It will become the defining litmus test."

"On a national level if the issue fades away for the Republican Party, they are going to lose tons of conservatives," said Matt Floyd, an Iowa pastor who leads the lobbying group Conservative Christians for America. "I think it will galvanize conservatives and you'll see them link up."

Iowa Republican Party Chair A.J. Spiker highlighted these concerns in a recent letter to Republican National Committee leaders obtained by Business Insider.

"While inclusion is important, elected Republicans (we all know the most recent example) and National/State Party leaders who embrace so-called same sex marriage are doing grave harm to our Party and the whole of society," Spiker wrote, apparently referencing Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman, who recently came out in support of gay marriage.

"Lets not forget, so-called same sex marriage is an irreconcilable difference with the Republican Party's largest constituency... Committed Christians."

<more at link>

[Kosher Ham]

This whole thing is a hot mess.

It's about religion and money... When it should be about what's right.

I hate this kind of stuff.

[Hubbs]

As someone who has drafted opinions for a state Supreme Court Justice, and then changed them based on arguments made by other judges or at oral argument, I can tell you that this kind of speculation is absolutely worthless. The fact that Roberts had his own take on a complicated, cutting edge issue of law does not reflect anything other than that this was his take on the law and no one else went along with him. Supreme Court Justices are more insulated from press and public pressure than anyone else in the world (for good and bad).

But not a single other justice was making that argument. Of those other eight people, there was precisely no one who would have been telling Roberts that Obamacare should be upheld because it was a tax, and therefore constitutional. I respect your experience, but have you ever had the specific experience of drafting that kind of opinion?

Also, the speculation I'm offering is simply a repetition of speculation I've heard from a few other lawyers who had some pretty damn impressive resumes of their own, including impressive clerkships.

[Larry]

Conservatives Promise 'DEFCON 6' If The Supreme Court Overturns California's Gay Marriage Ban

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/conservatives-promise-defcon-6-supreme-010757737.html

Shouldn't this belong in the "How to fix the GOP" thread? :halo:

(Drawing mental images of the next Republican Presidential primary being "defined by this issue".)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Conservatives Promise 'DEFCON 6' If The Supreme Court Overturns California's Gay Marriage Ban

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/conservatives-promise-defcon-6-supreme-010757737.html

<more at link>

That will be a huge mistake, not politically, but for the church. This marriage between the GOP and much of Protestant America has helped the GOP like nothing else in 60 years, while at the same time it has been one of the greatest reasons for people walking away or flatly rejecting the church. Abortion is one thing, the argument there is that it is a life taken, what's this?

We simply don't talk about these types of things in our house but my son asked yesterday about all the ruckus so I told him. His reply shocked me, he simply said, "who cares what they do? If they want to be gay let 'em." Interested in his thinking I decided to push back gently to see how he responded, so I told him that in the Bible God said that we weren't supposed to do certain things, and this is one of them. He replied, "Yeah but that's what we believe, if they don't then let them do what they want, it's a free country." No joke, actual conversation with my 11 year old.

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 06:46 AM ----------

Shouldn't this belong in the "How to fix the GOP" thread? :halo:

(Drawing mental images of the next Republican Presidential primary being "defined by this issue".)

When there is almost a two thirds majority that disagrees with them in this country on this issue, you may see it in Congressional and Senate races, but not the Presidency....not if they want to try and actually win back the White House.

[twa]

he will soon learn it is not a free country

[Major Harris]

An 11 year old used the phrase "it's a free country".?

no offense but that's hardly groundbreaking lol

[AsburySkinsFan]

he will soon learn it is not a free country

An the argument from the Left is that these types of laws make it less so.

---------- Post added March-27th-2013 at 07:57 AM ----------

An 11 year old used the phrase "it's a free country".?

no offense but that's hardly groundbreaking lol

If only more 40 year olds could learn it.

[Major Harris]

If only more 40 year olds could learn it.

All 40 year olds know it refer to twa last post

[Bliz]

We simply don't talk about these types of things in our house but my son asked yesterday about all the ruckus so I told him. His reply shocked me, he simply said, "who cares what they do? If they want to be gay let 'em." Interested in his thinking I decided to push back gently to see how he responded, so I told him that in the Bible God said that we weren't supposed to do certain things, and this is one of them. He replied, "Yeah but that's what we believe, if they don't then let them do what they want, it's a free country." No joke, actual conversation with my 11 year old.

.

Pay no mind to twa and MH's snark.

Good for your boy, not reversing himself. It would be refreshing if more adults understood (and practiced) that there can be a division between the rules you follow that govern yourself and the rules that you seek to impose on others.