Predict how SCOTUS rules on gay marriage
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:55:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Predict how SCOTUS rules on gay marriage
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
Poll
Question: Gay marriage in new states? / DOMA struck down?
#1
No / No
 
#2
No / Yes
 
#3
California only / No
 
#4
California only / Yes
 
#5
Nationwide / Yes
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 87

Author Topic: Predict how SCOTUS rules on gay marriage  (Read 18000 times)
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: June 01, 2013, 09:58:24 PM »

When can we expect the Supreme Court to rule on this case, now that it's June? 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: June 01, 2013, 11:20:51 PM »

When does the Supreme Court's Term end?  I assume that's the day we'll find out about all of this. I've seen conflicting information and I'd like to take off work on that day.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2012TermCourtCalendar.pdf

Monday the 24th of June is the last scheduled day for the Court to meet.  However, the decision for the Obamacare case was announced on the Thursday after the last scheduled day last year and if they do something similar they might wait until Thursday the 27th.  All meeting dates in June are on Monday or Thursday, and that's the only thing I would count on, that they will announce on a Monday or Thursday in June.
Logged
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: June 02, 2013, 10:03:55 AM »

Could be the best gay pride month ever. Smiley
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: June 02, 2013, 10:24:04 AM »

Of course if the Supreme Court comes down and says that there is no right at all to have a publically recognized homosexual relationship, it could make the bans on gay marriage "settled law" the same way how abortion, marijuana, and in part health care are today, where a plurality or majority may disagree with the law but a large majority of the population and virtually every mainstream politician don't want to touch directly with a ten foot pole because they fear that it would cause major disruptions. 

or it could have a "Dred Scott" effect where it casts the court into disrepute and only increases the resolve of equality supporters.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: June 02, 2013, 01:20:07 PM »

I just had a sudden thought about how if the Supreme Court goes a moderate Hero route of leaving gay marriage largely up to the States to determine, it wouldn't necessarily be of any help to people in the situation facing afleitch and his American husband.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless the Court finds an explicit right to same-sex marriage, the above clause would indicate that for the purpose of immigration the Federal government has the power to not treat same-sex couples as married, even if the State the US partner is resident in would so treat them.
Logged
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: June 02, 2013, 07:12:07 PM »

So if it's up to the Feds wouldn't that just mean it's up to whoever happens to be President at that time?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: June 02, 2013, 09:06:32 PM »

So if it's up to the Feds wouldn't that just mean it's up to whoever happens to be President at that time?

No.  If Obama tried to have INS start treating same-sex marriages equally without a court ruling telling him to or Congress changing the law, then he'd be breaking the law.  While I imagine Obama would not defend a lawsuit calling for INS to do that, that's not the same thing as him telling INS to initiate such an action.  Still, a lot depends upon how the Court (i.e. Kennedy) writes its (his) opinion.  I suspect that in his desire to be a moderate hero, Kennedy will do one of two things.  He'll either write a narrow opinion that deals strictly with the tax issues that were brought before the court, or he'll write one vague enough that a same-sex marriage seeking to have the other partner gain a green card would need to file a suit.  There was a recent case, Torres-Barragan v. Holder, in the Central District of California, that had rejected having INS treat same-sex couples as married and cited the 1982 9th Circuit case Adams v. Howerton which found among other things that "Congress has virtually plenary power in immigration matters and is not bound by otherwise applicable equal protection requirements".  The Torres-Barragan v. Holder case was abandoned by the plaintiffs before the 9th Circuit got to rule on it, and none of the DOMA cases dealt with immigration law.

So even if a ruling broadly favorable to same-sex marriage is made in the DOMA case, the application of it to immigration law is likely going to have to be litigated further.
Logged
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: June 02, 2013, 09:21:44 PM »

Which is why the more I think about it the more I think we're going to get a far reaching ruling.

Kennedy knows what a moderate ruling would mean. It would mean a lot of confusion and it would mean having to hear the same kinds of cases with the same kinds of arguments in 3 years.

I truly think at some point, and it's probably already happened, Kennedy is going to say to himself: " We all know how this story is going to end. It's just a matter of if it happens in 2013 or 2017 or 2025. So I'll just join with the 4 liberals, sign off on the Equal Protection argument, bring along Roberts and be done with all of this."

Maybe I'm being foolishly optimistic. But I really thing that's how this will end in 3 weeks.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: June 02, 2013, 10:16:02 PM »

Even with an equal protection based ruling, I think immigration law would still require additional action by the courts or Congress because of precedent stating that equal protection does not have as much weigh in immigration law as it does in other areas of the law.  So that doesn't create any additional reason for Kennedy to rule on equal protection grounds.  Also Kennedy hasn't show any reluctance in the past to create confusion.
Logged
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: June 14, 2013, 09:03:16 PM »

Going back to the issue of timing. There are 4 big cases left. Voting rights, Affirmative action and the Marriage twins. If we don't get a ruling on the first 2 next week I think that means we'll get one next week, the other on Mon. 24. and that would put Marriage on Thur. 27.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: June 16, 2013, 10:15:35 PM »

Does the Supreme Court have to rule on these 4 or can they put them off until the next secession?
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: June 16, 2013, 10:19:58 PM »

Anything less than "gay marriage is now legal everywhere" is Plessy part 2. I think the justices realize this.

How is that so?
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: June 16, 2013, 11:22:22 PM »

Does the Supreme Court have to rule on these 4 or can they put them off until the next secession?

It's not unheard of for the court to hold off on an important case, but usually its because the court is divided 4-4 with a vacancy to fill or something similar.  However, there are no vacancies, and its doubtful a rehearing would alter the opinion of any of the justices, so I'm doubtful that any will be held over.
Logged
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: June 17, 2013, 07:16:26 PM »

Thursday June 27 it is I guess. Stonewall anniversary. Could be a nice bookend.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: June 22, 2013, 03:03:20 PM »

So it seems that people are expecting that the part of DOMA that deals with federal recognition of same sex marriages to be struck down, while the part that deals with states recognizing out of state marriages to be retained. There's definitely a state's rights argument there, but "state's rights" is normally only used to help conservatives.

It's a little less sure whether Prop. 8 will be struck down, but most are assuming that it will. Obviously that is not "state's rights", even though the state as a whole wouldn't mind that they wouldn't have to wait until November 2014 to legalize it by initiative.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: June 22, 2013, 05:52:56 PM »

Thursday June 27 it is I guess. Stonewall anniversary. Could be a nice bookend.

I don't think the Court appreciates symbolism of this kind.
Logged
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: June 22, 2013, 06:00:21 PM »

Thursday June 27 it is I guess. Stonewall anniversary. Could be a nice bookend.

I don't think the Court appreciates symbolism of this kind.

One of them might. Wink
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: June 23, 2013, 12:15:31 AM »

So it seems that people are expecting that the part of DOMA that deals with federal recognition of same sex marriages to be struck down, while the part that deals with states recognizing out of state marriages to be retained. There's definitely a state's rights argument there, but "state's rights" is normally only used to help conservatives.

It's a little less sure whether Prop. 8 will be struck down, but most are assuming that it will. Obviously that is not "state's rights", even though the state as a whole wouldn't mind that they wouldn't have to wait until November 2014 to legalize it by initiative.
That's because only the provision dealing with federal recognition is up for debate in this case. The Supreme Court isn't allowed to rule on the other DOMA provision, on recognition by other states. It's only the federal part that's up for debate in this ruling.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: June 23, 2013, 12:21:20 AM »

So it seems that people are expecting that the part of DOMA that deals with federal recognition of same sex marriages to be struck down, while the part that deals with states recognizing out of state marriages to be retained. There's definitely a state's rights argument there, but "state's rights" is normally only used to help conservatives.

It's a little less sure whether Prop. 8 will be struck down, but most are assuming that it will. Obviously that is not "state's rights", even though the state as a whole wouldn't mind that they wouldn't have to wait until November 2014 to legalize it by initiative.
That's because only the provision dealing with federal recognition is up for debate in this case. The Supreme Court isn't allowed to rule on the other DOMA provision, on recognition by other states. It's only the federal part that's up for debate in this ruling.

The Supreme Court can make surprisingly broad rulings like Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific although that was actually due to a activist right-wing court reporter legislating from the court reporting.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: June 23, 2013, 05:21:21 AM »

Section 3 of DOMA is the issue before the Court. That is what deals with the federal definition of marriage. I don't see how any constitutional challenge to Section 2 could survive unless the Court recognizes a right to gay marriage within the Constitution. Under current jurisprudence, Section 2 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,964
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: June 23, 2013, 06:18:29 AM »

So it seems that people are expecting that the part of DOMA that deals with federal recognition of same sex marriages to be struck down, while the part that deals with states recognizing out of state marriages to be retained. There's definitely a state's rights argument there, but "state's rights" is normally only used to help conservatives.

It's a little less sure whether Prop. 8 will be struck down, but most are assuming that it will. Obviously that is not "state's rights", even though the state as a whole wouldn't mind that they wouldn't have to wait until November 2014 to legalize it by initiative.
That's because only the provision dealing with federal recognition is up for debate in this case. The Supreme Court isn't allowed to rule on the other DOMA provision, on recognition by other states. It's only the federal part that's up for debate in this ruling.

The SC is allowed to do whatever they want to. Tongue
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: June 24, 2013, 12:55:29 PM »

Fortunately, JCL, you're a member of an increasingly small minority.

That is where you would be glaringly wrong. Gay marriage is like taking a Rembrandt and spraying graffiti on it. Plus there is more who agree with me than you think and we're the majority.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: June 24, 2013, 02:01:49 PM »

Fortunately, JCL, you're a member of an increasingly small minority.

That is where you would be glaringly wrong. Gay marriage is like taking a Rembrandt and spraying graffiti on it. Plus there is more who agree with me than you think and we're the majority.

A) Comparing heterosexual marriage to the works of Rembrandt is an insult to Rembrandt.

B) Proof? How do you know how many people, nationwide (not just in some goddamn podunk town in Indiana), support or oppose gay marriage? How do you know?
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: June 24, 2013, 10:30:25 PM »

Fortunately, JCL, you're a member of an increasingly small minority.

That is where you would be glaringly wrong. Gay marriage is like taking a Rembrandt and spraying graffiti on it. Plus there is more who agree with me than you think and we're the majority.

A) Comparing heterosexual marriage to the works of Rembrandt is an insult to Rembrandt.

B) Proof? How do you know how many people, nationwide (not just in some goddamn podunk town in Indiana), support or oppose gay marriage? How do you know?

The burden of proof is on your side not mine. Besides how is it an insult to Rembrandt to use the comparison of traditional marriage vs gay marriage? You're trying to overturn the whole of human history in the name of moral relativity when this issue should be a non sequitur. With regards to the ratio of support vs opposition to gay marriage in Indiana the state is at least 60 against 30 for and ten not sure. We as a state want to ban and its wrong for the SCOTUS to say we can't. California banned it and that's something the pro-gay marriage crowd just can't stand.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: June 24, 2013, 11:11:16 PM »

Fortunately, JCL, you're a member of an increasingly small minority.

That is where you would be glaringly wrong. Gay marriage is like taking a Rembrandt and spraying graffiti on it. Plus there is more who agree with me than you think and we're the majority.

A) Comparing heterosexual marriage to the works of Rembrandt is an insult to Rembrandt.

B) Proof? How do you know how many people, nationwide (not just in some goddamn podunk town in Indiana), support or oppose gay marriage? How do you know?

The burden of proof is on your side not mine. Besides how is it an insult to Rembrandt to use the comparison of traditional marriage vs gay marriage? You're trying to overturn the whole of human history in the name of moral relativity when this issue should be a non sequitur. With regards to the ratio of support vs opposition to gay marriage in Indiana the state is at least 60 against 30 for and ten not sure. We as a state want to ban and its wrong for the SCOTUS to say we can't. California banned it and that's something the pro-gay marriage crowd just can't stand.

You're the one making the statement, you have to prove it. And Rembrandt was a good painter, whereas Kim Kardashian's "traditional" "marriage" was not a good marriage. Morality overturns tradition - husbands beating their wives was tradition for a damn long time. Heterosexuality hasn't always been the only game in town, nor should it be so solely on the basis that it was once. As to approval, I specifically said nationwide - Maine, for example, approved gay marriage by popular vote. And on the subject of "states' rights", many states wanted slavery and segregation. Should we have just let them be?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.061 seconds with 15 queries.