In todays conference the supreme court granted cert to all 4 cases that were pending. http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011615zr_f2q3.pdf OBERGEFELL, JAMES, ET AL. V. HODGES, RICHARD, ET AL. TANCO, VALERIA, ET AL. V. HASLAM, GOV. OF TN, ET AL. DeBOER, APRIL, ET AL. V. SNYDER, GOV. OF MI, ET AL. BOURKE, GREGORY, ET AL. V. BESHEAR, GOV. OF KY, ET AL. The cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted limited to the following questions: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state? A total of ninety minutes is allotted for oral argument on Question 1. A total of one hour is allotted for oral argument on Question 2. The parties are limited to filing briefs on the merits and presenting oral argument on the questions presented in their respective petitions. The briefs of petitioners are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, February 27, 2015. The briefs of respondents are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, March 27, 2015. The reply briefs are to be filed on or before 2 p.m., Friday, April 17, 2015.
This is HUGE news. In under 6 months, same-sex marriage will either be legal nationwide or thrown into chaos. About time they act!
One of the biggest non-issues to ever face American politics is about to go away. I can literally think of no other issue that people shouldn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about than gay marriage. If you're not gay, you are absolutely in no way shape or form obligated to get a gay marriage.
Us card carrying members of the radical homosexual agenda will be working on that 'obligation' next!!
I can't wait to here crybabies talk about the will of the people, despite the fact that a majority of Americans support SSM and the fact that the will of the people has never been a determinant when it comes to civil rights.
I think when all this and said and done and we hopefully end up with a favourable ruling for marriage equality, the next fight should be amending the Civil Rights Act to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. ENDA is simply outdated; outlawing job discrimination does nothing to protect LGBT people from being refused housing, goods or services. The patchwork of laws across the US simply isn't good enough. The reality will soon be that you can marry your same-sex partner, but putting a picture of them on your work desk (and thus revealing you are gay) will be perfectly legal grounds to fire someone. Ridiculous.
Based on the questions that counsel have been instructed to address, it's clear the justices wish to focus on whether the requirements of the 14th amendment are applicable to the cases before them, and if applied, whether those requirements impose certain limitations on state powers. As for precedents to consider, we have Loving v. Virginia (and several other cases) that indicate the power of states to regulate marriage is not unlimited. But we also have a more recent case, Baker v. Nelson, that some point to as a precedent empowering states to refuse recognition of same-sex relationships. There is considerable debate over the Baker case, which came to the Court through a process of mandatory appellate review and was dismissed without a full hearing by the Court (yet had the same effect as a ruling on the merits at the time). Many legal experts nonetheless consider its precedential value limited, and some regard it as having little to no precedential value in light of more recent legal developments (the overturning of laws against same-sex sexual behavior via Lawrence v. Texas; the overturning of the ban on recognition of same-sex marriages by the federal government as a result of United States v. Windsor; and most recently, the Court's dismissal of seven appeals of cases from five states, allowing same-sex marriage recognition to grow from 19 states to 36 in a very short time.) It is certainly true that a ruling that reverses course and finds that states have the power to ban same-sex marriages, would result in turmoil. It would create a controversy concerning the status of lawfully licensed same-sex marriages. Such a result seems inconceivable at this juncture, but the Court can act in ways that are unpredictable - as it did when it dismissed the aforementioned appeals of rulings favorable to same-sex couples in October 2014.
I think I'd agree with that. My view is, despite the desperate hopes of the homophobes, Kennedy (possibly even Roberts and Alito....never Scalia and his robot Thomas) will consider their "place in history". They HAVE to know that even if they uphold the bans now (2014)....5-10, 15 years tops, they'll be overturned or even repealed. Then they'd be left looking like the "Plessy v. Fergusion" Court, instead of the "Brown v. Board" Court in the history books. Don't discount their own personalities and egos in this.....or the fact they've seen the polls which show majority support for gay marriage rights now.
I agree. I see either a 5-4 or 6-3 ruling in favor of same-sex marriage. I do not foresee Alito joining the majority to make it 7-2, but if he does all the better. Roberts could go either way really, and I think your argument definitely applies to him. As to Kennedy, I think he is very likely to swing in support of same-sex marriage. Just look at his past decisions: He wrote the majority opinions in Romer, Lawrence and Windsor--the three most significant rulings in favor of gay rights in U.S. history. I find it almost unfathomable that he would cap that legacy with a ruling against same-sex marriage.
Well, keep in mind they "talk amongst themselves".....if Roberts and Alito feel it's best for them to go with the minority and keep it 5-4 with Kennedy as the sole swing vote, they will mention that to him. But again, Roberts and Alito will be thinking, as most USSC Justices do, "What will be my place in the history books? Siding with bigots...or with equality under the law?" If it's 6-3 or especially a 7-2 decision....it'd be a gut punch and a knee-capping (figuratively speaking) for the anti-gay rights folks.....they can't imagine that even 20 years of consecutive Republican Presidents nominating Republican Justices will overturn that ruling....except those who are just so obsessed with hating gays that....well...they have their OWN issues to deal with over the next decades. 5-4?.....it remains a political football ON THE RIGHT....Republicans will have to find a balancing act to both appease the homophobes with promises of "Constitutionally conservative Justices if we win elections" (with the broad hint that such justices would over-turn the ruling).....but not appearing TOO homophobic, since the national polls go against the homophobes. BTW, naturally, there's no reason to discuss Scalia and Thomas....Scalia has even contradicted himself and both men care nothing but making sure ditto-heads like them.
Even if they do manage to get another conservative to the SCOTUS, with a pro-SSM ruling they would first have to get through all other lower courts. Those courts would have to successfully ignore the precedence that will be set with a pro-SSM ruling and come up with another argument that hasn't been made yet so that it can be brought up before the SCOTUS. Once the SCOTUS rules in favor of SSM, the game is over for the anti-SSM ever getting it banned again IMO. It would be like trying to get interracial marriage banned again.
