LA judge upholds state SSM ban

[Miles]

So far ahead, we're behind:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[eric82oslo]

This means the Supreme Court will soon take up the case.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This means the Supreme Court will soon take up the case.

[bedstuy]

This means the Supreme Court will soon take up the case.

Why?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

This means the Supreme Court will soon take up the case.

Why?

Because there are conflicting rulings on the same issue from federal courts.

[SteveRogers]

This means the Supreme Court will soon take up the case.

Why?

Because there are conflicting rulings on the same issue from federal courts.

Not quite yet. While this is the first Federal District Court to uphold a SSM ban since Windsor, what really matters is whether or not there is a circuit split. So far none of the Courts of Appeals have upheld a ban. The 10th and 4th Circuits both ruled SSM bans unconstitutional. This case will be appealed to the 5th Circuit along with the Texas case that's already headed there. The 5th Circuit is the most likely to be the first Circuit Court to uphold SSM bans, so when that happens a Supreme Court decision will likely be (relatively) imminent.

 

[Grumpier Than Thou]

God, at first I thought LA meant Los Angeles and I was very confused for several reasons. Still, this is going to SCOTUS, and it's a shame.

[Likely Voter]

While it is bad decision, I'm sort of glad one federal judge finally ruled in favor of a ban. The 5th circuit will likely back this up (or the TX ban) and then finally SCOTUS will take it up.

And the whole notion that the "democratic process" trumps constitutional rights is ludicrous and will go nowhere with SCOTUS. That argument would lead to a whole host of potential quagmires and the court has made it clear that the Constitution trumps local legislation.

[Free Bird]

Got dangit, Bobbeh.

I know it's not Jindal, but I never saw another chance to make this reference

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

God, at first I thought LA meant Los Angeles and I was very confused for several reasons. Still, this is going to SCOTUS, and it's a shame.

I'd say it's still at least a year away (if that).  They won't take it until there's a Circuit split.

[Bojack Horseman]

While it is bad decision, I'm sort of glad one federal judge finally ruled in favor of a ban. The 5th circuit will likely back this up (or the TX ban) and then finally SCOTUS will take it up.

And the whole notion that the "democratic process" trumps constitutional rights is ludicrous and will go nowhere with SCOTUS. That argument would lead to a whole host of potential quagmires and the court has made it clear that the Constitution trumps local legislation.

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

[Brittain33]

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

Republicans would be happy to surrender on this issue and stop talking about it ASAP.

[Badger]

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

Republicans would be happy to surrender on this issue and stop talking about it ASAP.

[Likely Voter]

While it is bad decision, I'm sort of glad one federal judge finally ruled in favor of a ban. The 5th circuit will likely back this up (or the TX ban) and then finally SCOTUS will take it up.

And the whole notion that the "democratic process" trumps constitutional rights is ludicrous and will go nowhere with SCOTUS. That argument would lead to a whole host of potential quagmires and the court has made it clear that the Constitution trumps local legislation.

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

That is pessimistic and unreleastic. The five justices that overturned DOMA in Windsor aren't going to support SSM bans. Kennedy, who is considered the 'swing' vote wrote the majority opinion.  Kennedy wrote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The guy who wrote that isn't going to vote in favor of SSM bans. And all the federal judges who have ruled against SSM in the last year or so have cited the Windsor case, even noting Scalia's dissent and how he predicted that Windsor would be the death of SSM bans. This LA Federal judge is so far the only one to go the other way.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

Republicans would be happy to surrender on this issue and stop talking about it ASAP.

They can go back to talking about rape.....their #1 foot in mouth subject.

[dead0man]

So far ahead, we're behind:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Damn, I loved Marty Feldman in Young Frankenstein.  When did he turn into a bigot?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My guess is that the Supreme Court rules that while a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a state-wide ban is constitutional and ruling that the constitution does not give federal courts the authority to strike down state-level bans on same-sex marriage.  I doubt Kennedy would have any problem signing off on such an opinion.  In cases like Bush v. Gore*, D.C. v. Heller*, Shelby County v. Holder, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, etc  the five conservative justices have proven that they will pay the Constitution no more mind than toilet paper when it conflicts with their personal political agendas.  The question isn't whether the Supreme Court's conservative majority will once again violate their oaths of office, but merely how far they will go.  Even if they rule that statewide bans are unconstitutional, it will only be because the Republican Party believes it is in its political interest to put this issue to bed (I suppose that would be another "who cares why people do good things" situation as Al put it in another thread).

*Alito and Roberts weren't on the Court at the time of the two * rulings.

[bedstuy]

My guess is that the Supreme Court rules that while a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a state-wide ban is constitutional and ruling that the constitution does not give federal courts the authority to strike down state-level bans on same-sex marriage.  I doubt Kennedy would have any problem signing off on such an opinion.  In cases like Bush v. Gore*, D.C. v. Heller*, Shelby County v. Holder, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, etc  the five conservative justices have proven that they will pay the Constitution no more mind than toilet paper when it conflicts with their personal political agendas.  The question isn't whether the Supreme Court's conservative majority will once again violate their oaths of office, but merely how far they will go.  Even if they rule that statewide bans are unconstitutional, it will only be because the Republican Party believes it is in its political interest to put this issue to bed (I suppose that would be another "who cares why people do good things" situation as Al put it in another thread).

*Alito and Roberts weren't on the Court at the time of the two * rulings.

That's insane.  Maybe you're right on the ruling, but that reasoning is insane.

Essentially, you're saying that the Supreme Court would rule that the 14th Amendment applies to the Federal government, but not the states.  I see where you're going with that because it's a Solomon-like splitting of the baby.  But, you need to think about the legal question and factual circumstances reaching the Supreme Court.  There is no Federal ban on same-sex marriage, so that's not going to be a ruling under any circumstances.  The power of the 14th Amendment to reach state action is not remotely questionable.  Not going to happen.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My guess is that the Supreme Court rules that while a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a state-wide ban is constitutional and ruling that the constitution does not give federal courts the authority to strike down state-level bans on same-sex marriage. I doubt Kennedy would have any problem signing off on such an opinion.  In cases like Bush v. Gore*, D.C. v. Heller*, Shelby County v. Holder, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, etc  the five conservative justices have proven that they will pay the Constitution no more mind than toilet paper when it conflicts with their personal political agendas.  The question isn't whether the Supreme Court's conservative majority will once again violate their oaths of office, but merely how far they will go.  Even if they rule that statewide bans are unconstitutional, it will only be because the Republican Party believes it is in its political interest to put this issue to bed (I suppose that would be another "who cares why people do good things" situation as Al put it in another thread).

*Alito and Roberts weren't on the Court at the time of the two * rulings.

That's insane.  Maybe you're right on the ruling, but that reasoning is insane.

Essentially, you're saying that the Supreme Court would rule that the 14th Amendment applies to the Federal government, but not the states.  I see where you're going with that because it's a Solomon-like splitting of the baby.  But, you need to think about the legal question and factual circumstances reaching the Supreme Court.  There is no Federal ban on same-sex marriage, so that's not going to be a ruling under any circumstances.  The power of the 14th Amendment to reach state action is not remotely questionable.  Not going to happen.

Then they will likely just rule that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional and that the federal courts which have struck down state-level bans acted unconstitutionally.  I agree it's an insane position, legally speaking.  I'm sure they know that too, but I doubt they care tbh.

[Likely Voter]

My guess is that the Supreme Court rules that while a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a state-wide ban is constitutional and ruling that the constitution does not give federal courts the authority to strike down state-level bans on same-sex marriage.  I doubt Kennedy would have any problem signing off on such an opinion.  In cases like Bush v. Gore*, D.C. v. Heller*, Shelby County v. Holder, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, etc  the five conservative justices have proven that they will pay the Constitution no more mind than toilet paper when it conflicts with their personal political agendas.  The question isn't whether the Supreme Court's conservative majority will once again violate their oaths of office, but merely how far they will go.  Even if they rule that statewide bans are unconstitutional, it will only be because the Republican Party believes it is in its political interest to put this issue to bed (I suppose that would be another "who cares why people do good things" situation as Al put it in another thread).

*Alito and Roberts weren't on the Court at the time of the two * rulings.

that is just paranoia. You may not always agree with Justice Kennedy, but he isn't some partisan hack who is taking orders from Reince Priebus. And he isn't one of those 'states rights' types of guys either. Kennedy also wrote the majority opinions is Romer v. Evans (overturning a CO ban on any laws protecting gays from discrimination) and Lawrence v. Texas (which overturned sodomy laws).

Here is part of his opinion from Romer (way back in 1996)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a way, he really isn't a swing vote in this case. He has made it clear that he sees sexual orientation as protected by the fourteenth amendment just like race. When you look at his history, it seems impossible that he will suddenly back SSM bans, especially for partisan reasons.

[7,052,770]

Call me a pessimist, but SCOTUS isn't going to rule in our favor here. This is an extremely partisan, activist  court that will rule yet again based on the GOP platform: that there's no constitutional right to marriage and gay marriage becomes illegal again in California, Iowa, Massachusetts, and all the other states who had their bans struck down.

Republicans would be happy to surrender on this issue and stop talking about it ASAP.

Maybe in Massachusetts, but certainly not in most of the states that usually vote Republican.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My guess is that the Supreme Court rules that while a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a state-wide ban is constitutional and ruling that the constitution does not give federal courts the authority to strike down state-level bans on same-sex marriage.  I doubt Kennedy would have any problem signing off on such an opinion.  In cases like Bush v. Gore*, D.C. v. Heller*, Shelby County v. Holder, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, etc  the five conservative justices have proven that they will pay the Constitution no more mind than toilet paper when it conflicts with their personal political agendas.  The question isn't whether the Supreme Court's conservative majority will once again violate their oaths of office, but merely how far they will go.  Even if they rule that statewide bans are unconstitutional, it will only be because the Republican Party believes it is in its political interest to put this issue to bed (I suppose that would be another "who cares why people do good things" situation as Al put it in another thread).

*Alito and Roberts weren't on the Court at the time of the two * rulings.

that is just paranoia. You may not always agree with Justice Kennedy, but he isn't some partisan hack who is taking orders from Reince Priebus. And he isn't one of those 'states rights' types of guys either. Kennedy also wrote the majority opinions is Romer v. Evans (overturning a CO ban on any laws protecting gays from discrimination) and Lawrence v. Texas (which overturned sodomy laws).

Here is part of his opinion from Romer (way back in 1996)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In a way, he really isn't a swing vote in this case. He has made it clear that he sees sexual orientation as protected by the fourteenth amendment just like race. When you look at his history, it seems impossible that he will suddenly back SSM bans, especially for partisan reasons.

Kennedy is absolutely a partisan hack when it really counts (ex: Bush v. Gore, Shelby County v. Holder), but I agree he isn't one to the same degree as Alito or Thomas.  I see Kennedy as being more like a Libertarian-leaning version of Scalia by which I mean that he has absolutely no problem legislating from the bench, Constitution be damned, but does so to serve his ideological agenda first and foremost rather than due to pure political hackery.  I hope you are right though.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My guess is that the Supreme Court rules that while a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a state-wide ban is constitutional and ruling that the constitution does not give federal courts the authority to strike down state-level bans on same-sex marriage.  I doubt Kennedy would have any problem signing off on such an opinion.  In cases like Bush v. Gore*, D.C. v. Heller*, Shelby County v. Holder, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, etc  the five conservative justices have proven that they will pay the Constitution no more mind than toilet paper when it conflicts with their personal political agendas.  The question isn't whether the Supreme Court's conservative majority will once again violate their oaths of office, but merely how far they will go.  Even if they rule that statewide bans are unconstitutional, it will only be because the Republican Party believes it is in its political interest to put this issue to bed (I suppose that would be another "who cares why people do good things" situation as Al put it in another thread).

*Alito and Roberts weren't on the Court at the time of the two * rulings.

That's insane.  Maybe you're right on the ruling, but that reasoning is insane.

Essentially, you're saying that the Supreme Court would rule that the 14th Amendment applies to the Federal government, but not the states.  I see where you're going with that because it's a Solomon-like splitting of the baby.  But, you need to think about the legal question and factual circumstances reaching the Supreme Court.  There is no Federal ban on same-sex marriage, so that's not going to be a ruling under any circumstances.  The power of the 14th Amendment to reach state action is not remotely questionable.  Not going to happen.

Windsor was not decided on 14th Amendment Equal Protection grounds, but with some dubious quasi-Federalist reasoning that the Federal government could not apply a different standard for marriage that the states do to strike down the relevant part of DOMA on 5th Amendment Due Process grounds.

However, at worst (from the standpoint of SSM advocates) I could just barely see Kennedy rule that while States don't have to recognize SSM begun within their borders that they do have to treat a SSM done in another State the same as any other marriage.  Frankly, the only way I could see Kennedy doing that instead of a full requirement of recognizing SSM is if doing so would cause Roberts to join him for a 6-3 decision.

[SteveRogers]

My guess is that the Supreme Court rules that while a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a state-wide ban is constitutional and ruling that the constitution does not give federal courts the authority to strike down state-level bans on same-sex marriage. I doubt Kennedy would have any problem signing off on such an opinion.  In cases like Bush v. Gore*, D.C. v. Heller*, Shelby County v. Holder, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, etc  the five conservative justices have proven that they will pay the Constitution no more mind than toilet paper when it conflicts with their personal political agendas.  The question isn't whether the Supreme Court's conservative majority will once again violate their oaths of office, but merely how far they will go.  Even if they rule that statewide bans are unconstitutional, it will only be because the Republican Party believes it is in its political interest to put this issue to bed (I suppose that would be another "who cares why people do good things" situation as Al put it in another thread).

*Alito and Roberts weren't on the Court at the time of the two * rulings.

That's insane.  Maybe you're right on the ruling, but that reasoning is insane.

Essentially, you're saying that the Supreme Court would rule that the 14th Amendment applies to the Federal government, but not the states.  I see where you're going with that because it's a Solomon-like splitting of the baby.  But, you need to think about the legal question and factual circumstances reaching the Supreme Court.  There is no Federal ban on same-sex marriage, so that's not going to be a ruling under any circumstances.  The power of the 14th Amendment to reach state action is not remotely questionable.  Not going to happen.

Then they will likely just rule that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional and that the federal courts which have struck down state-level bans acted unconstitutionally.  I agree it's an insane position, legally speaking.  I'm sure they know that too, but I doubt they care tbh.

Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in all three landmark gay rights cases, each time doing so over the strenuous objection of Scalia and company. He may fall in line with the other conservatives on many issues, but on this topic he's demonstrated a willingness time and again to break with the party line. He's been cautious about getting too far ahead of public opinion, and he plays his cards close to his chest, but his opinion on this issue is pretty clear. He knows where this all is inevitably headed, and he's not going to be the guy to suddenly reverse course and issue a Plessy-style decision that sets gay rights back 20 years.

The lower courts didn't suddenly start striking down state-level gay marriage bans on their own initiative. They've been following Kennedy's lead. He knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote the Windsor opinion. In the worst case scenario, the Court continues to punt for a little while longer. But right now every indication is that the Court will rule in favor of gay marriage by the end of 2016.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My guess is that the Supreme Court rules that while a federal ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, a state-wide ban is constitutional and ruling that the constitution does not give federal courts the authority to strike down state-level bans on same-sex marriage. I doubt Kennedy would have any problem signing off on such an opinion.  In cases like Bush v. Gore*, D.C. v. Heller*, Shelby County v. Holder, Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, etc  the five conservative justices have proven that they will pay the Constitution no more mind than toilet paper when it conflicts with their personal political agendas.  The question isn't whether the Supreme Court's conservative majority will once again violate their oaths of office, but merely how far they will go.  Even if they rule that statewide bans are unconstitutional, it will only be because the Republican Party believes it is in its political interest to put this issue to bed (I suppose that would be another "who cares why people do good things" situation as Al put it in another thread).

*Alito and Roberts weren't on the Court at the time of the two * rulings.

That's insane.  Maybe you're right on the ruling, but that reasoning is insane.

Essentially, you're saying that the Supreme Court would rule that the 14th Amendment applies to the Federal government, but not the states.  I see where you're going with that because it's a Solomon-like splitting of the baby.  But, you need to think about the legal question and factual circumstances reaching the Supreme Court.  There is no Federal ban on same-sex marriage, so that's not going to be a ruling under any circumstances.  The power of the 14th Amendment to reach state action is not remotely questionable.  Not going to happen.

Then they will likely just rule that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional and that the federal courts which have struck down state-level bans acted unconstitutionally.  I agree it's an insane position, legally speaking.  I'm sure they know that too, but I doubt they care tbh.

Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in all three landmark gay rights cases, each time doing so over the strenuous objection of Scalia and company. He may fall in line with the other conservatives on many issues, but on this topic he's demonstrated a willingness time and again to break with the party line. He's been cautious about getting too far ahead of public opinion, and he plays his cards close to his chest, but his opinion on this issue is pretty clear. He knows where this all is inevitably headed, and he's not going to be the guy to suddenly reverse course and issue a Plessy-style decision that sets gay rights back 20 years.

The lower courts didn't suddenly start striking down state-level gay marriage bans on their own initiative. They've been following Kennedy's lead. He knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote the Windsor opinion. In the worst case scenario, the Court continues to punt for a little while longer. But right now every indication is that the Court will rule in favor of gay marriage by the end of 2016.

We'll see...